Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 18 February.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID
TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM
COOLING WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 February 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Prisons (Contracting Out)

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in extending contracting out in the prison service.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): From 1 April, the Prison Service agency will assume full responsibility for taking forward Government policy on the involvement of the private sector in the management of prisons. The agency will make recommendations to me later this year.

Mr. Coombs: In warmly welcoming the private management of prisons initiative, may I ask my hon. Friend to extend the initiative to young offender institutions? Given that a third of crime is now committed by people under the age of 17, is not that a strong case for strengthening the network of young offender institutions? Such strengthening could be done by the private sector.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right: young offender institutions are a most important part of the prison service and we need the best standards in them.
It is clear that competition and tendering can bring better management to parts of the prison service, so, undoubtedly, the director general will want to look at that early. At present, we are conducting a tendering exercise for education. The initial signs promise extremely well for the young offender institutions which are so important.

Mr. Soley: Will the new contracted-out private prisons be covered by Crown immunity? If not, will the Minister ensure that Her Majesty's prisons have Crown immunity withdrawn from them so that all prisons can operate on a level playing field?

Mr. Lloyd: What we want is exactly the same playing field for all prisons. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly on Crown immunity because I am not sure of the details that it covers. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know. The equal playing field, to use the hon. Gentleman's term, which was the gist of his question, is what we are aiming at.

Mr. Sweeney: Can my hon. Friend confirm that we are engaged in the biggest prison building programme this century? Can he give an assurance that those places will not be wasted and will be put to good use in dealing with miscreants?

Mr. Lloyd: Prison places will be filled not by the prison service but by the courts. It is the largest prison building programme this century. We are almost at the end of it and 18 of the 21 new prisons are open. The last three prisons will open next year. They have improved facilities in the prison service which enables an improvement in the sort of programmes that are so necessary if prisoners are to return to society better able to lead law-abiding lives.

Police (Restructuring)

Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which organisations he has had recent discussions about the local organisation and local accountability of the police force.

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has had with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities regarding proposals to restructure police forces and police authorities.

Ms. Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those chief constables whom he has met since December 1992 to discuss his proposals for restructuring the police force.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have had many discussions with a wide range of interests and organisations on the subject of police reform. I intend to produce firm proposals for change and I shall consult widely on those proposals before final decisions are taken.

Mr. Tipping: Will the Home Secretary say clearly whether he intends to move towards larger police forces? If he does, how does he propose that local communities should have an influence so that the police are sensitive and responsive to their needs? When he makes his statement, will he bear in mind the representations that he has had from people in different parties in his county of Nottinghamshire?

Mr. Clarke: As I said, I shall bring forward proposals in due course. Obviously, I need time to work on them and then I shall go out to consultation on them. The aim is to produce stronger police forces with strong local police authorities that can improve further the effectiveness of the protection that the police offer against crime.
When I produce the proposals I shall consult widely on them, including the people in Nottinghamshire with whom I have already had general discussions. I have floated openly the fact that I am looking at all these matters and ideas are already pouring in. I shall formulate my own proposals and then go out and have discussions on them in due course.

Mr. Gerrard: The Home Secretary must be aware of the public concern at the huge increases in crimes such as burglary. Does he accept that to deal with such increases we need effective partnerships at local level between local authorities, the police and the general public? Against that background, if restructuring is necessary, why does not he approach the matter as a joint exercise with the local authorities and the police, rather than ploughing on with his own agenda, which is undermining local partnerships and confidence?

Mr. Clarke: I am very concerned at the high level of crime. That is why I am looking closely at how we can improve the effectiveness of the police force in making its contribution to protecting us against it. As Home Secretary, I am expected to produce proposals for strengthening the police force. Then I shall discuss with local authorities and others the implications of those proposals. But I cannot be expected to put my whole job into commission and not even to make proposals until I have cleared them with all the relevant interest groups.

Interest in the police and crime goes beyond local authorities; the public as a whole are interested and I am sure that they are all waiting for my proposals.

Ms. Lynne: If the Secretary of State met the chief constables, did he by any chance discuss with them one of the recommendations in the Sheehy report—that the post of chief superintendent be abolished? Is he aware that certain chief superintendents in the Greater Manchester area and other urban areas are responsible for a far greater caseload than those in police forces in other areas? Will he take that into consideration before he makes his final decision?

Mr. Clarke: I meet chief constables all the time and I have discussions with them on all the matters that we are now discussing, including police structure, police financing and pay, how to reward good performance and how to organise commands more effectively. In due course, we shall produce proposals. So will Sir Patrick Sheehy. It is pointless debating proposals before we have them. In due course the Sheehy group will make proposals and we shall consult on them before we put them into effect. Meanwhile, the Superintendents Association, having given its evidence, is undoubtedly waiting, like the rest of us, to see what proposals Sir Patrick and his colleagues make.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we need a police structure across Britain that is fully accountable and response to local needs? Is not responsiveness best achieved by beefing up local liaison and community policing panels, which were successfully introduced under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Does he also agree that accountability works both ways? The police have to be accountable for what they do and the money that they spend and local authorities have to be accountable if they do not properly support the police. The worst local authorities have not done so.

Mr. Clarke: I agree that the local liaison arrangements are extremely good in many places. I strongly approve of the move towards neighbourhood policing which is being made throughout the country. It will give more power and discretion to local commanders and keep them in one place for longer so that they get to know the patch for which they are responsible and the people within it. We also need to improve the effectiveness of the police authorities. When people talk about the local accountability of their police force, they do not always automatically think of the police authority. They are more likely to complain to their Member of Parliament or to the Home Secretary than to the police authority.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand that there is urgent need for reorganisation? The Government keep telling us that they are putting more money in. The police keep telling us that there is not enough money. Those of my constituents who are not exactly involved in crime say that they are not getting value for money.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend puts clearly the question that every sensible member of the public asks. We are spending much more on policemen and Britain has more policemen than ever before. They are higher paid and better equipped, yet there are constant voicings of dissatisfaction, despite the fact that the police face rising demands on them. That is why we need to look afresh at


strengthening the way in which we lay down national and local standards and compare the effectiveness of different police forces. We need to have proper structures in place to ensure that the performance of all police forces is brought up to the standard of the best.

Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the experience of Thames Valley shows that it is perfectly possible for the police service to provide a good service to the public across more than one county area? Given that spending on the police has increased by about 74 per cent. since 1979, is not it common sense to seek the best possible value for every pound that is spent?

Mr. Clarke: We have police forces that cover more than one local authority, police forces such as the Metropolitan police in which the local authorities are not involved, and police forces that are covered by one local authority. The pattern is determined by history rather than logic. I am looking at that history at the same time as looking at the important things—how strong and effective the police authority is; how clearly it lays down local standards and demonstrates that it is delivering them; and how well it helps the police to communicate with their local population. I shall produce proposals that address all those questions as soon as I can.

Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary understand that, with crime apparently out of control in many parts of the country—a crime is now committed every six seconds every day—what people consider important is that institutional change should help the fight against crime and that there should be no break in the connection between policing and the local community? Whatever other changes the right hon. and learned Gentleman may make, will he undertake not to remove the right of local representatives—Conservative, Labour or whatever—who have been elected by local people, to have a say in local policing and an influence on it? Many consider that central to the fight against crime.

Mr. Clarke: First, crime is not out of control, although it is an extremely serious matter. The level of crime is rising: that is the reason for our proposals for secure accommodation for juvenile offenders and for dealing with people who offend on bail and those who organise rave parties. The Government are known to be working on various proposals. At the same time, we are encouraging the process of making the police more effective and the local liaison mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
Of course, the structure is also important, as I have just said. But, with the greatest respect, I do not think that the public would lay as much stress as do the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and his party on whether local councillors dominate the police authority.

Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. and learned Friend, like me, feel a certain scepticism when he hears Opposition Members—especially those on the Front Bench—talk of support for the police? Over the past decade, they have voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Criminal Justice Acts and the Public Order Act 1986, not to mention the prevention of terrorism Acts.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Sedgefield, is one of those who are changing the rhetoric of the Labour party.

It is becoming closer to that of President Clinton, who advocated the restoration of the electric chair during his campaign in America. The fact is that the hon. Member for Sedgefield advocates no new proposals and his party has a history of voting against each and every proposal that we have presented to strengthen the fight against crime.
The hon. Gentleman does not yet know what my proposals are, but, the moment that it is suggested that I might change the organisation of the police force, he is plainly prepared to oppose those proposals, just as he has opposed all our improvements in the past.

Immigration

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to attend a further meeting of the Trevi group on immigration and related issues.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Trevi is concerned with police co-operation and not with immigration policy. European Community ministerial meetings on these two separate areas of work usually take place on consecutive days. The next formal meetings are scheduled for 1 and 2 June in Copenhagen.

Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful for the Minister's claim that the Trevi group is concerned only with policing functions. Perhaps he will take this opportunity to publish the proceedings of all Trevi meetings: then we could be assured that it is not a secret society designed to harmonise immigration and asylum policies throughout Europe and to prevent people from seeking political asylum and safety in western Europe. Does he agree that there is an agenda to try to deny refugees safety and human rights throughout Europe by means of common closing of frontiers?

Mr. Wardle: Trevi has nothing to do with asylum seekers. Any decisions made by the Trevi Ministers will be published and made available to the House, as they regularly are.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the November meeting—the most recent meeting of Immigration Ministers—decisions were made on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum, host third countries and expulsion policy, and those decisions were made available to the House and placed in the Library. All the policies that I have mentioned are entirely in keeping with the Geneva convention.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although many hon. Members on both sides of the House would want any application for immigration to be dealt with compassionately, we should also bear in mind the best interests of people already living in this country?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The present Government and successive Governments in this country have operated a firm but fair immigration policy. We shall continue to do precisely that.

Mr. Allen: The Minister must be aware that there is great concern that immigration, asylum and other policies are being decided by secret meetings—in the European dimension, by the Trevi group and the ad-hoc group on immigration, and by the K4 group of civil servants. One


example of such policies is to go for the lowest common denominator on visitors' visas. The Government are abolishing the right to appeal against the refusal of a visitor's visa. Will the Minister today give an undertaking that, instead of listening to colleagues in Trevi and other groups, he will listen to those in the other place who are currently discussing the abolition of visitors' visa rights? The Government should listen to the House of Lords when it throws out their proposals, not to people in the Trevi group.

Mr. Wardle: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's speculation about what will or will not happen to the Asylum and Immigration Bill in another place. The House will agree that it must make sense for member states of the European Community to harmonise immigration policies, not seek to uniform policy. They should discuss important issues of common interest within a framework of intergovernmental co-operation. Following the Maastricht treaty, that is precisely what will happen under the pillar of co-operation.

Child Cruelty (Evidence)

Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to alter the law on evidence in cases of cruelty to, or murder of, children.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): My right hon. and learned Friend recognises and shares the concern that has been expressed following a recent case. He has no plans to change the law on evidence, but he will wish to give early and careful consideration to what the Royal Commission on criminal justice has to say on the matter when its report is available in a few months' time.

Dame Jill Knight: There is widespread public concern about the baby Griffin case in which two people who were known to have battered, burnt and killed that child walked scot-free from the courts. Is my hon. Friend aware that that is just the latest in a long list of such cases? What has he to say to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has been calling for a change in the law to end the injustice and provide more deterrents against such wicked acts?

Mr. Jack: I share the concern of my hon. Friend, who has quite properly brought the issue to the attention of the House. I am aware of what the NSPCC has had to say and have studied its evidence to the royal commission. The Home Office has asked the NSPCC to send us the results of its research, which we shall study most carefully. In its evidence it said that it wanted to draw attention to the issue, but it does not have a prescriptive solution to the problems outlined by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister take careful note not only of the evidence of the NSPCC but of other medical and social caucuses? I think that he will agree that it is frightening that children who are killed appear to have no rights. No one wishes to take away someone else's legitimate rights, but the child victim must be first and foremost in our minds at all times.

Mr. Jack: The thesis of the hon. Lady's question is entirely right. However, when dealing with criminal justice

issues, we must focus on matters of evidence, which is the central point of the case. She may have seen reports in the newspapers discusing the opinions of the Crown prosecution service on the subject. It carefully detailed its views and centred on the issue of evidence. The royal commission will be the place where all the arguments come together.

Mr. Bowis: Has my hon. Friend seen the exposé in the Evening Standard of the cruelty to, and exploitation of, children and young people by a villainous character? While they are vulnerable through unemployment, he seeks to send them out to raise money that goes straight into his pockets. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the law is adequate to meet such problems and, if necessary, have it changed quickly? Will he also ensure that the police are undertaking a full and swift investigation into the perpetrator of that crime?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that newspaper report, which I found most disturbing. He will be aware that child cruelty matters can be handled under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I shall certainly look carefully at his words and ensure that the law is adequately framed to deal with the matter.

Prisoners (Education)

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for further and higher education for prisoners.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Competitive tendering, as I said earlier, has demonstrated that there is scope for making significant improvements in the quality of delivery and the value for taxpayers' money of education to prisoners. I am therefore placing in the Library a list of 68 prisons and young offender institutions where contracts are now to be offered for the future provision of education services.

Ms. Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that the great success of Holloway's education department in getting women on access courses depended on their being eligible for concessionary fees? Does he realise that further education colleges are having to charge the full fee of £550 per woman? From where does he think those women prisoners will get that money? Will he ponder on the state of mind of the head of Holloway's education department, who in the space of two weeks has received an MBE for her services to prison education and a redundancy notice as a result of the Government's contracting out of education plans?

Mr. Lloyd: The lady about whom the hon. Lady speaks has rendered exceptionally good service to the prison education service. I have no doubt that she will be extremely attractive to the new suppliers of education who are looking for people of experience and skill. I suggest to the hon. Lady that she should study carefully—I have put the information in the Library—what the new providers will do, what they have undertaken and that for which they have contracted. If she does that with an open mind, I am sure that she will join me in agreeing that the exercise has proved a fruitful one from which the education service in prisons will benefit.

Mr. Faber: My hon. Friend will be aware of the appallingly high level of drug abuse in some prisons. Has he had an opportunity to meet members of the Addictive Diseases Trust, who are pioneering—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question would have been most appropriate as a supplementary to Question 6, which I could not call. I regret that it is not appropriate in its present form as a supplementary to Question 8, which relates to further and higher education. The hon. Gentleman should move his question into education.

Mr. Faber: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is educative treatment for the taking of drugs in one of our prisons? Is he aware also that the Addictive Diseases Trust is trying to cure addiction through education in one of our prisons? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider expanding that programme of education into other prisons.

Mr. Lloyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting his supplementary question so neatly in order. He is right to stress that the treatment to which he referred is an important part of education in our prisons. I attended the launch of the Addictive Diseases Trust's new enterprise at Highdown prison and was most impressed with the programme that it is developing. Opposition Members may like to know that the trust is not part of the prison service. It comes in from outside, which shows how much skill and benefit we can gain from taking knowledge and capability from outside. I have told the ADT that I shall be examining carefully what it achieves in its present location to see whether that can be treated as a blueprint for a scheme that could be spread across the prison service. My hon. Friend is right to say that drugs are as much a menace in prison as they are outside.

Miss Lestor: Notwithstanding the Minister's comforting words about the future of the education scheme, especially in Holloway prison, if he has confidence in the future of such a scheme will he give a guarantee that the women who are participating in it, who were featured on a Radio 4 programme this morning, will have their fees paid so that they are not cut off in mid-stream from education courses that will be of lifetime benefit to them?

Mr. Lloyd: I did not hear the programme to which the hon. Lady refers. I can say, however, that no prisoner will lose out because of the change in the way in which education is managed in prisons. At Holloway, there will be no change—certainly not until the end of August. There is therefore plenty of time to ensure continuity. Whoever pays the fees, the opportunities that are there now will be continued. The great change that is coming about means that opportunities will be increased by the tendering exercise that we have introduced. That is because more imagination is being injected into the provision of the service.

Burglary, Theft and Mugging

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further powers he intends to give the courts to deal with the incidence of burglary, theft and mugging.

Mr. Jack: We are developing proposals to increase the powers of courts to deal with persistent juvenile offenders, some of whom may have been convicted of the offences to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and I am well aware that his office has been in touch with the Macclesfield division of the Cheshire constabulary, but is he aware that, within that division, burglary from the home is up by 30 per cent., theft of or from cars is up by 30 per cent. and theft of other sorts is up by 24 per cent? The detection rate in my division is some 35 per cent.—one of the highest rates of detection in the country, on which my police should be warmly congratulated—but is my hon. Friend not prepared to do something about the fact that much of the trouble is caused by young recidivist offenders who are arrested by the police and taken before the courts but released into the community to re-offend?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, with his usual robustness, puts his case with great clarity. I congratulate the Cheshire police on their efforts to deal with the crimes that my hon. Friend listed and on their support for the home watch scheme, which my hon. Friend also supports. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are four-square behind my hon. Friend in his wish to deal with persistent juvenile offenders who carry out many of those crimes. I wish that we had similar robust support from the Opposition.

Mr. Trimble: Before the courts can deal with offenders, they must be brought before the courts. What is the Minister's reaction to the apparent decline in the number of cases coming before the courts at the moment?

Mr. Jack: My reaction is to refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that the Home Secretary gave earlier on his efforts to improve the police service and its effectiveness, because in that way criminals can be caught and ultimately brought before the courts for justice.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that the frustration of police, magistrates and judges is not restricted to Cheshire at having to go on cautioning, cautioning, cautioning, and then releasing into the community young offenders who are persisting in their offending? Has the time not come to remove the hard core of persistent offenders from circulation?

Mr. Jack: My hon. and learned Friend will know the efforts that we in the Home Office are making to expand the amount of local authority secure accommodation, which would deal with some of the problems that he mentions. Equally, we must not forget that there are other ways of dealing with juvenile offenders. However, I agree that dealing with the persistent juvenile offender is an important priority; it is certainly at the top of my list of priorities and that of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister face the fact that there has been a 163 per cent. increase in burglary in the past 13 years and that there is immense pressure on the police, with the result that there is a low clear-up rate? Will he respond to the Labour party's plea for urgent action? Is it not time that the Government faced up to their responsibilities and gave leadership and support to those who need to fight crime at local level?

Mr. Jack: I will respond to what the Labour party has said. I am flattered, to a degree, by the fact that it has endorsed the very policies that we are following. We have formed the new National Board for Criminal Prevention, reactivated a ministerial group on crime prevention, pioneered the safer cities concept and expanded it by a further 20. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stand up and endorse the policies that have already resulted in a 90 per cent. reduction in burglary in the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham, and reductions in burglaries in Bradford, Salford, Bristol and Deptford. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to endorse and support those policies.

Fire Regulations

Sir John Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the draft fire regulations resulting from EC directive 89/391/EEC.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Following the issue in May 1992 of a consultative document on the proposals, there was some concern about the extent to which the draft regulations exceeded the requirements of the EC directives. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced in December that the draft regulations would be given further consideration.

Sir John Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that the last thing we want as we pull out of recession is for our businesses, especially our smaller businesses, to be clobbered by a new wave of fire regulations costing several billion pounds? In the light of the Prime Minister's drive to reduce these crippling burdens, will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department does not add to the requirements of any EC directive? Indeed, will he seek to reduce them?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend confirms precisely the concerns about unnecessary costs and over-regulation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary highlighted when he announced a fresh look at the proposals in December. We want to be sure that people at work are as safe as possible from the risks of fire, but we are determined not to push costs on to businesses, nor burdensome regulations which go beyond the needs of safety and common-sense precautions.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that one group of small businesses with a particularly poor record on fire are hoteliers offering bed and breakfast accommodation? Will he make sure that any new directives about fire ensure the highest possible safety standards to try to save people from death as a result of fires in those entirely inadequate places?

Mr. Wardle: The regulations will apply to large hotels and boarding houses, and the hon. Gentleman will know that those establishments have to have a certificate under section 1 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The smaller premises will be excluded, but will, of course, still be liable to the general provisions of the 1971 Act.

Car Crime

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to reduce car crime.

Mr. Jack: The themes of Car Crime Prevention Year continue to play a significant part, in all police force areas, in encouraging action to combat car crime. In addition, we are actively promoting the secured car parks initiative and I have formed an advisory group further to inform policy development in combating car crime.

Mr. Evans: I welcome the Government's initiatives, but is the Minister aware of the growing frustration—he will also have heard it today—about the low deterrence and low punishment that some of these young offenders are receiving? Age is no barrier to the misery that they bring to society, and age should be no barrier to the sort of sentence meted out to deter these people. May we have an assurance from the Minister that he is looking at this problem and that those young offenders will be left in no doubt that society has had enough?

Mr. Jack: First, I commiserate with my hon. Friend. I know that he has been a victim of car crime and speaks with great feeling on the matter [Interruption.] If that is the Opposition's attitude to the victims of crime, let it be marked in this place. My hon. Friend will have acknowledged the line that I have taken this afternoon on the subject of persistent juvenile offenders, many of whom are involved in car crime. I also draw his attention to the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which put special responsibility on parents of young people who may be involved in crime. It bears down heavily on that as well and I hope that it will contribute to providing a solution to the central issue of my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Mandelson: Are the Minister and the Home Secretary aware of the shameful incident which took place in my constituency yesterday, and which was shown to the nation on ITN's "News at Ten" last night, in which an 11-year-old boy stole, rode, and crashed a car and then swaggered with his mates in front of the television cameras because all that the police could do was to release him, reported but uncharged? That incident is not typical of Hartlepool, but it is illustrative of what is happening in all constituencies right across the nation. Will the Minister tell the House what he intends to do to crack down on persistent young offenders and explain to my constituents why the Government have failed to provide the secure accommodation in Cleveland that is needed to detain these young offenders?

Mr. Jack: The Home Office and the Department of Health, who are in the lead in providing the necessary resourcing for secure accommodation, are working hard to secure our objectives. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that he supported the action that we shall be taking on persistent juvenile offenders. We have at least put that to the top of the agenda and are working hard on that policy. I am grateful for his support.

Mr. Ottaway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the car crime wave which swept through Croydon and south London last year? Does he agree that one of the best ways of combating this is to encourage the admittedly growing use of car security devices by encouraging insurers to charge lower premiums if such devices are used?

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. I have already seen the Association of British Insurers on that point. It has recently introduced what it calls the Thatcham report, which is a way of assessing the


effectiveness of car security devices. At the launch of that in London recently, I again called for a tangible demonstration of premium reduction in respect of properly installed car security devices.

Mr. Maclennan: Bearing in mind that it is only two years since the Government sought to introduce new principles of sentencing which were supposed to be definitive, why have the Government felt it necessary to embark on this review? What evidence is there that they got it so wrong two years ago?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Member might look at some of the evidence on juvenile crime that has gone to the Home Affairs Select Committee. He would then see that the overall incidence of juvenile crime has fallen, but this small group, which the whole House has identified, of persistent juvenile offenders has fallen through the net—juvenile offenders who have not responded to any of the regimes in place. It is quite clear that the public and the House want us to take action.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the borough council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, in conjunction with the Norfolk constabularly, have brought out a closed circuit television scheme for all their public places and car parks and that since its introduction car crime has gone right down? Is he aware that this is the first scheme of its kind in the country, and will he encourage other authorities to bring in similar schemes?

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; where Norfolk goes today, others will follow—as, indeed, they have in Bradford. I can cite an example there where the safer cities programme has helped to fund an inner-city CCTV scheme which has reduced car crime by 60 per cent. Interesting Home Office research on this subject will be published very shortly.

Wolds Prison (Disturbances)

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into disturbances at the Wolds prison.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Regular reports are made by the Home Office controller based at the Wolds and details of all incidents are reported to prison service headquarters. None of these has merited a separate inquiry.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister at least hold an inquiry into the alarming number of assaults occurring at the Wolds private prison? Is he aware that figures released by his Department show that in the state sector the average number of assaults is six per prison per year? In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), he said that eight assaults had occurred at the Wolds in a single month. Does that not show the folly of prison privatisation and the stupidity of extending it? Is it not made even more damning by the fact that, while the state sector prisons are very often overcrowded and underfunded, the Wolds is a state-of-the art prison with facilities which are only dreamt about in the public sector?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course I look at the figures very thoroughly, and I find that the Wolds is punctilious in reporting every incident. All such incidents are recorded and put in the figures. The Wolds figures are before adjudication, whereas the figures from the rest of the

prison service are after adjudication, so I do not think that they provide a fair comparison. I am very happy with the way in which the Wolds is conducted, but I look very carefully at the figures that come to me.

Bingo

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding Section 48 of the Gaming Act 1968 and the Bingo Act 1992 relating to the promotion and advertising of bingo.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Since the passing of the Bingo Act 1992, we have received representations from the Bingo Association of Great Britain and the National Bingo Game Association about the advertising of bingo.

Mr. Brandreth: Does my hon. Friend recognise that bingo is essentially a recreational activity in this country, where the punter spends small sums of money comparable with those spent in an evening at the pub or the cinema? Does he therefore recognise the anomaly whereby a socialist crook like Robert Maxwell can advertise newspaper bingo on television while a modest bingo club such as the one in Chester—which is superb, despite having small prizes—cannot even advertise on local radio?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is half right: bingo is a social activity, but it is also gambling. Because it is both, and because the gambling is light, the restrictions on it are far fewer than for other forms of gambling. My hon. Friend's local bingo club may not be able to advertise on the radio, but we have made it possible under the 1992 Act for it to advertise its club facilities and its address in his local paper.

Violent Crime

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met his counterparts in the European Community to discuss penalties for violent crime.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with his counterparts in the European Community to discuss co-operation across a range of criminal justice matters, but penalties are a matter for the criminal law of each member state and are not normally discussed with our European partners.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in Belgium people who rape young women can receive sentences of 10 to 15 years' mandatory prison service together with hard labour, and that for other kinds of rape they will be given solitary confinement and a confinement period of a minimum of eight years? Is he also aware that the women in this country are getting sick and tired of judges handing out soft sentences to rapists, and that there are those who think, as I do, that perhaps we should do something a bit more drastic to those people, including cutting off their goolies?

Mr. Wardle: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister should be given the opportunity to answer.

Mr. Wardle: And to do so intact, I trust. What happens in Belgium is a matter for the Belgians. My hon. Friend


will be aware that stiffer sentences have been made available to the courts. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend will remind those who complain about sentences in this country that the Opposition have opposed every piece of law and order legislation since 1979.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Heppell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the impartiality of Independent Television News is threatened by the appointment as its next chairman of Mr. Michael Green, a known Conservative supporter and Conservative donor? Or does the Prime Minister share the views of his predecessor and ask himself, as she did, "Is he one of us?"

The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that the impartiality of ITN is at all threatened by the appointment of Mr. Green, any more than I would question the impartiality of many programmes whose presenters may have one or other political opinion.

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of one single militant teacher trade union which proposes to ballot its membership to boycott all tests [Interruption.]—Yes, all tests associated with the national curriculum? Will he also join me in saying just how damaging that would be to the education of the nation's children?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that point, and I thoroughly condemn the union concerned. I believe that it will be seen by parents as a concerted attack on the rights of pupils and their parents to know what progress the pupils are making in their education at their individual schools. I very much hope that the teachers of that union will reject the proposition put before them.

Mr. John Smith: Is it not a deplorable indictment of Conservative government that during the Conservative years crime has more than doubled? What action does the Prime Minister propose to take to protect our citizens from the crime wave that is sweeping the nation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want to put the blame for everything on the shoulders of the Government—quite apart from the view expressed by his shadow home affairs spokesman this morning. Let me illustrate for the right hon. and learned Gentleman some of the things that we have done. There has been the passage of the Public Order Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, both Criminal Justice Acts,

the Prison Security Act and the Act to ban joy riding, every one of which was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party.

Mr. Smith: Has the Prime Minister noticed that, whatever he claims to do or to have done, the crime rate rises consistently year after year? Does he think it remotely tolerable that, according to the Government's crime survey, there are about 25,000 break-ins in this country every week? When will he do something about protecting our citizens from that?

The Prime Minister: I note that there was no pledge from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to support legislation that we brought forward in previous years or to support us in the future in dealing with crime. Crime has increased ever since the second world war, under all Governments. Our record in combating crime is comparable with that of other countries in western Europe. This trend has been seen year after year, but it is not a matter which can be dealt with just by legislation. I doubt whether any other Government would have provided for the police the resources that the present Government have provided. Certainly, no other Government would have sided with the victim against the villain in the way that the present Government have.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Gloucestershire county council set a budget £10 million over its standard spending assessment? Does he know that Gloucestershire county council has debts of £25 million but has no plans substantially to reduce that figure? Does my right hon. Friend agree that plans should be made immediately to see that Gloucestershire county council seeks to reduce its debts so that money can be spent on education rather than on debt servicing?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is regrettable that any authority should set an excessive budget. We have made it clear that we shall not hesitate in any way to cap such budgets. It is open to local authorities to set new, lower budgets, and I very much hope that Gloucestershire county council will do so.

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barnes: I was interested in the Prime Minister's initial reply about his engagements for today, but what about his engagements for tomorrow? My Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill seeks to put the missing millions back on the electoral register and to secure access to polling stations for disabled people. Will the Prime Minister be around tomorrow to vote in support of that measure, and will he bring his friends with him? I know that he needs all the friends that he can get nowadays?

The Prime Minister: I shall, in fact, be in my constituency meeting those friends.

Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conviction of the IRA terrorist Jimmy Canning represents a real success for the security services? Will he join me in congratulating those services in putting that murderous thug behind bars?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that will be the wish of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. I am happy to congratulate both the Crown prosecution service and the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Ashdown: While the Vance-Owen plan extracts the very best out of the terrible opportunities left open to us in Bosnia, does the Prime Minister realise that this is not a peace of which either he or other western leaders can be proud? It is their failure which has resulted in a price being paid in the dismemberment of the Muslim community, the disintegration of a state which was recognised by the United Nations, and reward for the aggressors. Does the Prime Minister understand that while we must all hope for peace in Bosnia, our hopes for peace in Europe will depend on our learning the lessons of this miserable affair?

The Prime Minister: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman continues to take a wholly negative view of the enormous amount that has been done to seek a satisfactory peace in Yugoslavia. What is significant is the remarkable co-operation between the United States, the European Community and the United Nations in seeking to bring that conflict to an end. The best way forward, and the only credible way forward that has yet been found, is the Vance-Owen plan, which we strongly support. I very much welcome the policy statement from the United States Government earlier this week.

Mr. Moss: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three councils in Cambridgeshire—East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire—which recently announced a zero component for the district council portion of the new council tax? How is it that some councils can deliver a highly effective service to their taxpayers while others, such as Harlow, are gross overspenders? Could it be because the Cambridgeshire councils are not controlled by Labour?

The Prime Minister: I think that there are two answers. First, the councils are efficient; secondly, they are not run by the Socialist party.

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: Does the Prime Minister not think it scandalous that at a time when the Health Department budget has been put into the public sector spending review and when prescription charges are about to be increased by 10 per cent., the West Midlands and Wessex health authorities have been allowed to squander £67 million on renting luxury homes in London, on air travel, on entertainment and on corrupt computer deals involving former Cabinet Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I have no intention of commenting on the detailed points made by the hon. Gentleman. There are adequate ways of making sure that they are examined. As to the health budget and all other budgets, one reason for undertaking a fundamental review is to make sure that taxpayers' money is well spent and that it is spent first on those areas that most require the expenditure.

Mr. Allason: When my right hon. Friend undertakes his review of European regulations that are handicapping British industry, will he turn his attention to the tourist

industry and consult the Torbay environmental health officer who requires every hotelier in Torbay to check, monitor and register the temperature of every deep freeze in every premises three times a day on penalty of prosecution? Is that not exactly the kind of daft regulation that we should get rid of?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that regulation to my attention. I will ensure that it is examined. There are many regulations that we could usefully manage without. The intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to identify them so that we can remove them.

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hutton: Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities and national health service trusts are currently being forced to cancel operations and close wards because of the inadequacies, and in some cases the mismanagement, of NHS resources? Is he aware, in particular, that in my constituency Roose hospital, which provides excellent geriatric care for elderly people, is being forced to close? Will he tell the House what measures will be taken to ensure that such hospitals stay open? How does he believe it helps health care for hospitals such as Roose to close?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the increased resources for health authorities—spending of £36 billion this year and planned spending of more than £37 billion next year; an increase in national health service expenditure by up to 57 per cent.; and an increase in the number of people treated. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the health authorities and the health service on that remarkable record.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agreed that it is the job of Government to attack cartels, cliques and vested interests—cartels in trade unions, cliques in Labour-controlled local authorities and vested interests that support the vast majority of Labour Members?

The Prime Minister: I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend has struck a sore spot. Every member of the shadow Cabinet is sponsored by a trade union, two thirds of the votes at the Labour conference are still wielded by trade unions; they will not support our tests in the schools because that is what the National Union of Teachers wants, they oppose our reforms on health because that is what the Council of Health Services Employees wants, and they fight competitive tendering because that is what the National Union of Public Employees wants. There is no doubt whose pockets they are in.

Mr. Faulds: Has no one—[Interruption.] Cheeky little pup.

Madam Speaker: Order. I recollect that "Erskine May" does not allow that sort of language.

Mr. Faulds: "Cheeky little pup" is a term of endearment, Madam Speaker. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Cyprus—[Interruption.]—rather, the Vance-Owen plan—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.

Mr. Faulds: Bosnia is not a laughing matter—[Interruption.] Those idiots on the Government Benches. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Vance-Owen plan as now drawn up is unacceptable because it rewards Serbian ethnic cleansing and is in danger of creating a Palestinian-type situation within a quarter of a century? Will the Prime Minister for once listen to reasonable advice from America, and will he understand that that plan can become acceptable only if

the Serbian aggression is held, if the danger to the Bosnian Muslims and their territory is removed, and if war criminals in Yugoslavia are brought to proper trial?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has set out many of the matters which have been our policy for some time and were reiterated earlier this week by the American Administration—in particular, the point about war crimes. We have also supported—and others are now joining us in doing so—increased and hardened sanctions, particularly along the Danube, to put further pressure on the Serbs. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the map is not yet a settled matter. Nevertheless, there have been very dramatic improvements towards peace as a result of the Owen-Vance proposals. We need to continue to pursue those, and to continue to put pressure on each of the combatants until they reach a conclusion which will be satisfactory, which can be policed properly and which can bring the dreadful conflict to an end.

Royal Taxation

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my further discussions with Her Majesty the Queen about taxation and Civil List payments.
On 26 November, I told the House that the Queen had asked me to consider the basis on which she might voluntarily pay tax on her personal income and also take responsibility for certain payments under the current Civil List arrangements. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had made a similar request in respect of his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
I am now able to tell the House that the further discussions between the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the royal household have been completed, and that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness have accepted the arrangements proposed.
The royal trustees are today publishing a report setting out the future tax arrangements for both the Queen and the Prince of Wales. The report includes a memorandum of understanding recording the detailed rules which will apply for income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. The agreement takes effect from 6 April 1993.
It provides for the Queen to pay income tax on all her personal income, whether from investments or from other sources. In addition, tax will be paid on that part of the privy purse income which is used for private purposes. There will be no tax payable on income from the Civil List, since that is used to meet official expenses and is not a source of personal income for the Queen; the same will apply in respect of other payments and facilities provided by the state for official purposes.
Her Majesty will also pay tax on any realised capital gains on her private investments and on the private proportion of assets in the privy purse.
In the unique circumstances of an hereditary monarchy, special arrangements are needed for inheritance tax. There could, for example, be no question of taxing assets such as the royal palaces which the Queen owns as sovereign and not in a private capacity. The agreement reached with Her Majesty therefore provides that inheritance tax should apply to all bequests or gifts by the sovereign other than to transfers of assets from one sovereign to his or her successor.
As the House will know, the Prince of Wales is already fully liable to tax, except on the income that he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall. From 6 April 1993 he will pay income tax on his Duchy of Cornwall income to the extent that it is used for private purposes; this arrangment will replace the voluntary payment of 25 per cent. of Duchy income that he currently makes to the Consolidated Fund.
The Inland Revenue will administer these arrangements, and the tax received from the Queen and the Prince of Wales will be included in the Inland Revenue's accounts. The Queen and the Prince of Wales will both have the same confidentiality on tax matters as any other taxpayer. Although these arrangements are voluntary, both the Queen and the Prince of Wales intend that they should continue indefinitely. Any changes in taxes or tax rates will automatically be applied.
The report of the royal trustees also sets out the new arrangements that are being made for the management of

the royal collection of paintings and other works of art. The royal collection is held by the Queen as sovereign and passes from one sovereign to the next. The collection cannot be sold to generate private income or capital for the use of the Queen, and the Queen does not benefit personally from the income generated by the collection.
So as to make the status of the royal collection clear, Her Majesty intends that the maintenance, conservation and presentation to the public of the royal collection should in future become the responsibility of a new charitable trust. The trust will fund itself from the income generated from admission charges and other sources. The new arrangements should improve access to the royal collection for the whole country.
The report also confirms that the Government have accepted the Queen's generous offer to refund the cost of a further five of the parliamentary annuities payable to members of the royal family under the Civil List legislation, in addition to the three annuities that she already refunds. That will apply from 1 April 1993. The result will be that only the annuities paid to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh will continue as a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund.
I am confident that the House will welcome these initiatives by the Queen and the Prince of Wales. The new arrangements will ensure that, so far as possible, the Queen will pay tax on her personal income according to the normal tax rules and will herself take responsibility for the Civil List payments to almost all other members of the royal family.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for returning to the House within a reasonably short period to make that announcement. There will be widespread acceptance of the principle that Her Majesty the Queen should not be exempt from tax on her personal income, and that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales should not be exempt from tax on his income from the Duchy of Cornwall. It will also be appreciated that the initiative came from the royal family itself.
I welcome the proposal to establish a royal collection trust, which will maintain the benefit of the royal collection for the nation. However, although it is accepted that assets held by the Queen as sovereign should not be liable to inheritance tax, will the Prime Minister explain why all private assets passing from one sovereign to the next should also be exempt? Although private assets such as Sandringham and Balmoral could well be regarded as having at least partial official use, which could be recognised, is it necessary to exempt all other private wealth from inheritance tax?
Although it is accepted that the sovereign is entitled to the same privacy in tax matters in respect of her personal affairs as are other taxpayers, can the Prime Minister tell the House in general terms how much is received each year by the privy purse?
With regard to the expenses which may be set against that income, can the Prime Minister say what they might be in general terms? Is my understanding correct that the Queen may set against liability to tax arising from the privy purse the payments which she makes to the Consolidated Fund to reimburse payments made to other members of the royal family?
Finally, can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that as much factual information has been given to the


House this afternoon as will be provided at the press briefing to be given by the Lord Chamberlain and a senior Treasury official at 4.15 pm?

The Prime Minister: On the latter point, so far as I am aware, there is no information available or which is relevant that I am unable to give the House but that will be given later today. I believe that I am able to give as much information as will be available later.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support for the proposals and Her Majesty's initiative and for the new arrangements for the royal collection.
As for inheritance tax, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that there is a unique circumstance in a hereditary monarchy, and it is right therefore that there should be specific exemptions for assets passing from one sovereign to his or her successor. I believe that is necessary to protect the independence of the monarchy, and I would not wish to detract from that independence in any way. The concerns that I would have were the arrangements to be any other would be the danger of the assets of the monarchy being salami-sliced away by capital taxation through generations, thus changing the nature of the institution in a way that few people in this country would welcome.
The sum total of the Civil List is about £8 million. I cannot immediately give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the total of the privy purse, not least because many aspects of the privy purse relate to income from the Duchy of Lancaster and not to matters of which I might immediately be aware. I will find the answer and write to him.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point on payments to the Consolidated Fund being set against tax is entirely accurate, and I believe that that is a proper provision against expenditure made by Her Majesty the Queen.

Sir Peter Hordern: Are there any implications in my right hon. Friend's statement for the royal yacht or for any other forms of transport for the royal family?

The Prime Minister: The royal yacht and the other facilities such as the royal flight are provided by Government Departments in support of the Queen's role as Head of State. The expenditure is carried on votes approved by the House. These long-standing arrangements are completely unaffected by the announcements I have made this afternoon.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As I was the hon. Member who introduced a Bill two years ago to achieve these objectives, my right hon. and hon. Friends have asked me to respond.
The Prime Minister's statement will not only be welcome on our Benches, but will be seen in the country as principled and popular and one that enhances rather than reduces the status of the royal family. If the royal family is as responsive to the public mood on this issue in the future as it has been in the recent past, it will ensure its continuance for a long time to come.
Only one factual question was left unanswered, and I ask the Prime Minister to be explicit. Can he confirm that

the implication of what he said is that the tax rate at which the monarch and the Prince of Wales will pay will be the same as that for everyone else in their tax bracket? Will the right hon. Gentleman and his Government be as speedy to respond to propositions from these Benches as the Queen has been in this respect?

The Prime Minister: It may of course depend on the merit of the proposal, but I will always be anxious to respond speedily whenever I can.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for these proposals. I can confirm that Her Majesty will pay income tax at the marginal rate of 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. in precisely the same way as every other taxpayer.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement this afternoon will be widely welcomed not only by the House but by the vast majority of people in Britain? It brings to a conclusion the discussions that have been taking place over several months, and I trust that he is aware that the outcome will be regarded as most satisfactory.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that his announcement on capital gains tax and, in particular, inheritance tax is also satisfactory? Is he also aware that many people in the United Kingdom will regard the transfer of assets from one monarch to another as an essential part of the monarchy together with its maintenance at a standard which the country desires for many years to come?

The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm support for these proposals. I strongly agree with his remarks about inheritance tax. I suspect that it would be the overwhelming wish of people in this country that the natural and important assets of the monarchy should be sustained and that it is necessary to make appropriate inheritance tax arrangements to ensure that that remains the case.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that this is the first time that there will be a comprehensive list of the royal collection which will enable us to see what is owned personally by the Queen and what is owned as a result of her position as sovereign? Will there be publication of what is owned by her position as sovereign? More importantly, why will the royal collection not be owned by the royal collection trust, a body to be set up to administer it?

The Prime Minister: It was thought more appropriate to establish trustees to deal specifically with the new arrangements for ensuring that the collection was generally available, more widely seen and operated on a basis which required no subsidy either by the Exchequer or by Her Majesty the Queen. There were detailed discussions as to the best method to achieve that, and the one chosen was the one that I announced this afternoon.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the new arrangements for the royal collection. Certainly there is no doubt that the royal collection will be codified. Whether those elements of it that will be owned by the Queen will be set out in a separate pamphlet, I cannot immediately confirm, but I see no objection to that.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members believe that, if greater steps had been taken to publicise the fact


that the monarch hands over some 80 per cent. of her income from the Crown lands already, the public pressure for her to be taxed in this way would never have arisen? Does he also agree that, if that money which she receives in the privy purse, which itself is payable out of the Crown lands, is to be taxed so far as it is there for personal purposes, in all equity the whole of her income from the Crown lands should be taxed at the applicable rate and not at the effective rate of 83 per cent. at which it is taxed today?

The Prime Minister: I can see that my hon. Friend may well have a future ahead of him in the Inland Revenue department examining Her Majesty's tax returns. The underlying point he makes is entirely right as it is certainly true that the hereditary revenues from the Crown estates by far exceed official expenditure in support of the Head of State. I think that that is a point which is understood by my hon. Friend and by many others, but not perhaps by everyone.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In addition to what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said, may I question the omission from what has been read by the Prime Minister and in the accompanying documents and the lack of any mention of income from the Crown property which the Queen voluntarily hands to the Treasury each year? The figure set out on page 16 of the Consolidated Fund accounts amounts to £71 million. On page 17, there are other figures which probably amount to the sum total which has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Teignbridge. Does the Prime Minister agree that that has been an excellent bargain for the taxpayer for the whole of the Queen's reign?
May I ask the Prime Minister to do his best to ensure that those members of the royal family who are now dropped from the Civil List will be accorded the degree of privacy which would be enjoyed by the nephew of any newspaper editor?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: I think that there will be a genuine hum of agreement, as the right hon. Gentleman has just heard, for his latter point. He makes a good point in the figures he quotes, particularly about the £71 million. I did not specifically mention them in my statement to the House, as there were many figures and for me to do so would have detained the House for a long time. As the right hon. Gentleman has seen, they are in the attendant documents which will now be available to the House.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, it is a fact that the surrender of the hereditary revenues which has been in place for over 200 years has ensured a very remarkable sum accruing to the central Exchequer over that period. I believe and hope that the new tax arrangements which are clearly quite different from anything we have seen before will also enable people to realise that very substantial contribution.

Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be widespread agreement that this demonstrates yet again the Queen's excellent judgment which she has shown consistently throughout her reign? Does he agree that that is why our monarch is admired throughout the world for the service that she has given our country?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. That was evident from the point that I made to the House when last I reported on the matter. The impetus for the payment of tax came not from the Government but from Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome its content. I am sure that many hon. Members will want to explore in more detail the inheritance tax provisions. Does the Prime Minister intend to end the anachronistic system under which the Civil List alone is outside the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General? Will he put it on the same basis as the £50 million-odd that is spent in support of the monarchy by the Department? That scrutiny causes no embarrassment.
The Lord Chamberlain will be holding a press conference at 4.15 at which I understand that an information pack will be available to journalists. Has the Prime Minister made arrangements for an identical information pack to be put in the Vote Office?

The Prime Minister: I will check. If the information pack was not going to be in the Vote Office, I shall ensure that it is there as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's request. On his earlier point, the Treasury has been the statutory auditor for the Civil List since, I think from memory, 1816. The audit arrangements are part of the Civil List arrangements. They have been approved by Parliament several times in recent years—in the 1950s, twice in the 1970s and again in 1990. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's blandishments, I have no plans to change that.

Mr. Richard Page: May I at once welcome the generous offer by Her Majesty, especially bearing in mind the fact that the revenue from the Crown estates exceeds that from official sources? I note that there is a memorandum of understanding, but I ask that a realistic policy be adopted towards any expenses that are incurred. We look to the monarch to represent the traditions and pride of Britain. We are not looking for a cut-price, basement option.

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's view. Of course, it is for that reason that we have made the appropriate inheritance tax arrangements and that, to follow up the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, many of the payments which are made to other members of the royal family are to be offset against tax. That precisely meets my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has today implemented clause 40 of the Commonwealth of Britain Bill which I introduced 18 months ago and which is before the House again? Is he further aware that the changes that he has announced today are as nothing to the changes under the Maastricht treaty under which the Queen will become a citizen of Europe with duties and responsibilities like everyone else? To speak of the continuity of an hereditary monarchy in those circumstances is unreal.
Is the Prime Minister also aware that across the political spectrum there is a growing interest in much wider constitutional reform—matters such as the relationship between Church and state, the degree of devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English regions, and the desire for greater democracy? There are people in Britain who would


like to be allowed to elect their Head of State, as America does. Does he agree that the time has come to fight off what is otherwise cynicism and disillusionment with many of our institutions by holding a proper inquiry into the British constitution to which people could give evidence? The House could address its attention to such an inquiry instead of all the creepy-crawly bowing and scraping that has come from so many Members of the House today.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises various points. I certainly was not aware that I had implemented clause 40 of his Bill. I can make him no promises as to the first 39 clauses or any which may follow clause 40. On citizenship, if the right hon. Gentleman cares to read the Maastricht treaty more carefully, he will find that Her Majesty the Queen and every other British citizen remain British citizens first and foremost, and at no stage will that be changed.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a much wider remit in his other points. I do not believe that he would carry many people in the country with him in the beliefs that he expressed in his final remarks.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I echo something that has already been said? The sovereign, as a focus for military, civil and voluntary service in this country, has responded to the popular will. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that no test will be made of whether any income from copyright damages should be subject to tax? May I suggest that the newspapers involved drop their opposition to the case, settle and reflect the popular mood in the same way as Her Majesty?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure that I would be prudent to respond to it this afternoon.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As one or two people are claiming credit for this proposal, let me remind the Prime Minister that, on the opening day of this Parliament, Black Rod came into the Chamber, stood beside me and asked us to go and see the Queen. I told her to pay her taxes, and I think that my voluntary unpaid research assistant, Black Rod, has done a reasonable job for a start.
Will the Prime Minister now deal with the hard part of the arrangement? Will the Queen be taxed on the £6,500 million that The Sunday Times declared to be her total assets in May 1992? Will she be taxed on the £500 million that supposedly constituted her personal wealth on the same date? Will she be taxed on the £341 million of investment income mentioned in Philip Hall's book about tax and the monarchy? Or will she be taxed on the £50 million or less that some of the newspapers have recently fed out, suggesting that the Queen does not really have much money at all, and that she will probably pay only two million quid in taxes?
The Queen has been forced into paying tax by pressure from people outside. The last thing that she wants to do is to give those people the impression that there is one tax regime for her and another for the ordinary punter.

The Prime Minister: I am unwilling to give credit where it is not due. Although the hon. Gentleman sought to make a passable case for taking the credit himself, I repeat that the initiative came from the Queen.

Mr. Skinner: Joke!

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman admits to being a joke, and I will not argue with him.

Madam Speaker: It is his birthday today.

The Prime Minister: In that case, I happily withdraw my last remark. On behalf of the House, I wish the hon. Gentleman a very happy birthday, and I will not respond in the beastly way in which I would otherwise have responded to the ludicrous question that he asked me.

Mr. Alan Duncan: May I invite my right hon. Friend to consider a hypothetical situation? At some time in the future, the balance of party representation in the Chamber may be rather different. If Her Majesty were called on to exercise her royal prerogative and choose between two leaders, one with a high-tax policy and the other with a low-tax policy, would there not be a severe risk of her being inexorably drawn into the forum of party-political conflict? Although her own conduct would be impeccable, is there not a risk that comment on it would not?
May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the decision that Her Majesty should pay tax at the prevailing rate, and think of introducing a special rate that would cross the political boundary?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can accommodate that last suggestion. It is the express wish of Her Majesty that she should pay income tax on her assessed income, in precisely the same way as other income taxpayers, and I believe that that is the right way for her to proceed. As for my hon. Friend's earlier point, Her Majesty is of course unable to vote.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average inheritance in my constituency is £13,000, and that many people in Pendle will look askance at the special arrangements for inheritance that he has suggested today? Will the right hon. Gentleman compile an inventory showing which goods belong to the state and which belong to the monarch? No such inventory exists at present.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is how his constituents would react, I do not believe that he knows his constituents remotely as well as he should. I have set out the arrangements under which Her Majesty will pay tax, and I think that they are perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if institutions in this country depended on the popular perception at any one time of individual holders of them, there would be precious few institutions left? Will he state explicitly what he has repeatedly said implicitly—that it is Conservative party policy to support the monarchy?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that the Conservative party, and every member of the Conservative party—and many beyond it—are strong monarchists and would not wish to see changes in the institutional hereditary monarchy in this country.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we try to clarify the position of the rouyal collection trust, which is to be set up at the beginning of April? Why should it not become the


owner? It is all very well to say that the Queen will continue in ownership, but the Prime Minister knows that she is advised by the keeper of the Queen's pictures and others. What would happen if the royal collection trust and the keeper of the Queen's pictures came into conflict over accessibility, as well they might? What provision will be made for what we understand to be a considerable part of the royal collection which has never been shown and is in storage? Are practical arrangements to be made for a division of responsibility to allow the accessibility for which the Public Accounts Committee and others have called?

The Prime Minister: Of course, there will be practical arrangements, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. One advantage of the ownership remaining with Her Majesty the Queen is that, as she is unable to dispose of the royal collection, it will remain in this country and remain available for people in this country to see, both in the short and the long term.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country and the Commonwealth are exceptionally fortunate to have a monarch, in the person of Queen Elizabeth II, whose sense of duty is unquestioned? Will he assure the House that the impact on her personal expenditure will not restrict her in carrying out her duties to the highest standards to which she has always adhered and which we wish her to maintain?

The Prime Minister: I can unequivocally give my hon. Friend that assurance, and tell him that I know that that would be the wish of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the royal family's decision to accept taxation is a product of the growing criticism of the royal family and the hereditary Head of State principle? Will he introduce legislation so that the taxation of the Queen and the royal family is not a voluntary matter and so that they are taxed in the normal way like the rest of the community? Will he also ensure that, as a large number of the buildings inhabited by the royal family are owned by the state, they will be more readily open to the public so that they can see what is in them, including what they, the public, own?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the premise at the start of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I think that very few other people will. Her Majesty has offered to pay tax on a voluntary basis and has made it clear that she expects it to be a continuing responsibility. His Royal Highness Prince Charles has done precisely the same, and that will remain the position. Taxation will continue, but on a voluntary basis. I see no reason and no need to introduce legislation.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton:): With permission, I should like to make a business statement. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
Motion relating to the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock, completion of remaining stages of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
Motions on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order and the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order.
Motion on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
THURSDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—European Communities (Amendment) Bill—progress in Committee, 12th day.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 17 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community Document No. 8412/92 relating to a Council regulation on feeding stuffs for particular nutritional purposes.

[Wednesday 17 February:

European Standing Committee A: Relevant European Community document—8412/92, feeding stuffs intended for particular nutritional purposes; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee—HC 79-vi (1992–93).]

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
Given the many stories about deteriorating national health service waiting lists, there is considerable anxiety in the House, especially on the Opposition Benches, that there should be an early statement on the Tomlinson report. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convey that message and perhaps even indicate to us whether he expects a statement in the near future.
I press the right hon. Gentleman again to seek a statement from the Home Secretary on what he may have in mind for the reorganisation of the police. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is considerable concern both about levels of crime and about the impact of what the Home Secretary has in mind on police morale.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider again a debate on public spending, for which we have pressed and to which we believe the House is entitled.
Finally, when does the right hon. Gentleman think that we are likely to have another Opposition Supply day?

Mr. Newton: I expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be making a statement on the Tomlinson report on London hospitals in the fairly near future. I cannot be precise about the date this afternoon.
The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who was answering questions only an hour or so ago, is considering the structure of police forces to see whether existing arrangements can be improved. There are no firm proposals at this stage and clearly, therefore, no basis on which my right hon. and learned Friend can make a statement. I am sure that he would wish to inform the House in an appropriate way when he has reached conclusions.
I note the hon. Lady's further requests for a debate on public spending and for Opposition time. I cannot add now to what I have said over previous weeks, especially in respect of Opposition time. I am sure that there can be further discussions through the usual channels.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate on taxation next week so that the House can examine once more taxation and representation? Such a debate would enable the House to consider whether the Queen should have the vote because she is now to pay taxes. It is an important and democratic principle.

Mr. Newton: I hesitate to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was saying a few moments ago. I suspect, however, that those who are Members of another place, who pay taxes but do not have votes, might wish to express an interest in the matter. It is one that raises some wider questions. My hon. Friend will know that the Budget is not far away, which means that he will have plenty of opportunities to talk about taxes.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Has the Leader of the House seen the report this morning that only 17 per cent. of the population believe that better services will result from the privatisation of the Post Office, as against 37 per cent. who believe that the service would deteriorate? That is an even bigger gap than that which exists for rail privatisation. Given the widespread concern in the House, as evidenced in early-day motion 848, that the privatisation of the Post Office would affect especially rural areas, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be a statement or a debate to clarify the Government's intentions?

[That this House recognises the importance of rural and community post offices to those in receipt of DSS giro cheques for payment of pension and other benefits; further recognises the difficulties of many benefit recipients whose financial circumstances make it difficult to secure bank accounts; calls on Her Majesty's Government to provide guarantees that the proposed DSS plans to pay benefits direct to bank accounts will not be at the expense of the financial viability of rural and community post offices; and further notes that the loss of valuable income through bank charges is an additional burden they cannot afford.]

Mr. Newton: I can say, in slightly different terms from those that I used in reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the position of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that recent press stories about the Government's plans for the Post Office can be described only as pretty wild speculation. Ministers

have yet to consider options. No decisions have been taken, and therefore there is no basis for a statement. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to probe further, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be answering questions on Wednesday next.

Mr. Roger Sims: Some months have elapsed since the new Governor of Hong Kong took office and subsequently made proposals for constitutional development in Hong Kong which have led to a good deal of discussion in many circles, including a useful debate in another place before Christmas, but this House has not had an opportunity to discuss Hong Kong for some time. Will my right hon. Friend remedy that omission fairly soon?

Mr. Newton: Without making any commitment at all, I can only say that I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I, as the original Westminster ratepayer who brought before the Westminster auditor the complaints about the sale of cemetries and the rigged sale of council houses under Shirley Porter's stewardship, ask for a debate in the House of Commons on the whole question of the pork-barrel political activities of Westminster city council?

Mr. Newton: It is so long since the hon. Gentleman asked me about anything except Members' interests that for a moment I had some difficulty considering what I might say. But I think that what I have to say is that I cannot promise him the debate for which he asks.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Defence this week, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence last week, in what might be described as a pre-emptive strike, agreed that the proposals in "Options for Change" should be reviewed. As the House lost the opportunity last year to debate the defence estimates because of the general election and in the light of concerns across the House, will my right hon. Friend give the House the opportunity to debate defence matters before the Easter recess?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly do so if I possibly can. Had the hon. Member for Derby, South asked me about this, as I half thought she might since she did so last week, I had intended to reply in what I think will be considered reasonably forthcoming terms. What I have in front of me is, "There is no time next week, but I shall certainly look at the possibility of finding time in the not-too-distant future." Therefore, I hope that I can create some pleasure on both sides of the House.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the Leader of the House consider allowing time for a debate on early-day motion 1215 on standing charges?
[That this House views with great concern standing charges being imposed on pensioners by British Gas, Electricity and Telecom, meaning an extra burden of £190 per year; recognises that many pensioners are already living below the poverty line; finds these scandalous charges a drain on their already overstretched resources; therefore calls for the immediate abolition of all standing charges; and calls for the President of the Board of Trade to call a meeting with all companies concerned with a view to alleviating this unnecessary hardship.]
The people of Britain and Scotland are disgusted at the way in which privatised industries are plundering the poor. Standing charges cost senior citizens, many of whom are already living below the poverty line, a further £190 per year. When will the Leader of the House allow a debate on that matter in the House?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the many arguments that have taken place on the matter over the years, it has been thought proper to refer to the fact that the policy that he has urged would cause increases in unit electricity prices which would not necessarily benefit small users. However, standing charges are clearly a matter for the utility companies. On telephone charges, I understand that Oftel has recently announced plans to extend the support line scheme which is designed to protect the position of the elderly and those on low incomes.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Depending on progress and with some approximation, will my right hon. Friend say when he expects the vote on the official Opposition's amendment on the social chapter to take place and what his response is to Lord Tebbit's advice yesterday?

Mr. Newton: With regard to the factual question, I am not in a position to provide a clear-cut forecast at the moment because that depends on the progress on the Bill. With regard to the observations of my noble Friend, I shall simply observe that they are the observations of my noble Friend.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on the day of the Royal Air Force debate, contributions on the Royal Air Force were largely restricted to the period when there was a 10-minute limit on speeches and, consequently, there was little opportunity to debate fully and adequately the changes that have occured, particularly under "Options for Change". As there will, quite properly, be one-day debates on the Army and Navy, will my right hon. Friend consider another day's debate on the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Newton: I always bear in mind, or will undertake to bear in mind, anything that is put in as quiet and reasonable a way as my hon. Friend put his question. I do not wish to excite too much hope. I have in mind at present, and had in mind, in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and referring to the hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South, a wider-ranging debate that would enable hon. Members to make points on all the services and on foreign affairs generally.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will have heard that the Prime Minister, after his statement, was not able to answer some questions. Will it be possible, not next week, but in the near future, to have a further statement in the light of the press conference that starts in one minute? Amnesia affects many of us. We forget what has happened in the past and do not pay tribute to the contribution of the royal family to the Consolidated Fund. The tax arrangements will be indefinite. Some of us have bad memories and we would not like the creeping socialism that seems to be arriving in the classless society. We fear the prospect of President Heath or President Benn contending for leadership.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member echoes the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) during questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I do not wish to add to what my right hon. Friend said in reply.

Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend is well aware of the great interest in the House and outside in the Government's promised White Paper on energy policy and the future of the pits. I know that it is his intention to allow the House an opportunity to debate it as soon as possible after it is published. However, may I ask him to give favourable consideration to the possibility of allowing for a two-day debate, the first day being open-ended, on the successful model of the arrangements that he made for the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill last June?
I hope that he will agree with me that, given the complexity and importance of the subject, it is impossible in a normal one-day debate, ending at 10 o'clock, in which, generally speaking, after Front-Bench spokesmen, Privy Councillors and other dignitaries have spoken, there is just an hour or two left, for Back-Bench opinion to be expressed and for a reasonable spectrum of opinion to be brought before the House.

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request and I acknowledge that there is a good deal of interest in this matter, but I think that arrangements for debating a White Paper which has yet to be published are best considered after it has been published.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion No. 1341 in my name?
[That this House recognises that the West Yorkshire Fire Authority is legally bound to provide services that meet efficiently all normal requirements; notes that in order to comply with the Conservative Government's capping criteria for 1993–94 the authority must close Bingley Fire Station and lose a turntable ladder at Brighouse, an emergency tender in Halifax and a prime mover in Moortown as well as shut Sowerby Bridge Fire Station; further notes that Mr. Manuel, the Chief Fire Officer, says these cuts will breach the minimum standards of cover and reduce the West Yorkshire Fire Service to that of a third world fire service; places on record the encouragement given by the Earl Ferrers to the authority to breach the cap to maintain minimum levels of service when he spoke to a delegation on 14th January; believes the underfunding of the Fire Service is not only a national disgrace but a recipe for disaster; and publicly states its support for the authority if it decides to set an 'illegal' budget as the Home Office Minister suggested.]
It recognises that West Yorkshire fire authority is legally bound, under Home Office rules, to provide minimum standards of service, but, in order to beat the cap issued by his Government, it will be unable to provide those minimum standards. The chief fire officer has given that warning. Can we have an urgent debate so that lives are not lost and property not destroyed needlessly?

Mr. Newton: I am not aware of any reason why West Yorkshire fire authority should not meet the nationally recommended minimums of fire cover and keep to its statutory duties, but if the hon. Lady believes that there is evidence to that effect, I am sure that she will bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and that he will consider it.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the recent imposition by the United States of grossly unfair anti-dumping duties on European steel producers, that the European Community itself uses equally flawed anti-dumping rules to impose duties on east European steel producers, and the fact that the GATT round seems to be bogged down and is three years overdue for completion, is not it about time that the House had a debate on the GATT round and on trade in general? That would, not least, give our Ministers a chance to tell us what they are doing to use their influence to reduce intensive protectionist measures in the European Community to ensure that the world trading system does not descend into 1930s-style tit-for-tat protectionism.

Mr. Newton: There have been several references in the past few minutes to debating foreign affairs and defence. I should have thought that some of my hon. Friend's points might be relevant were I able to find time for such a debate. I cannot find time for a specific debate on GATT at present.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, Sir Leon Brittan, the European Community Commissioner responsible, is meeting the new United States trade representative in the United States today, I believe. I am sure that he will be anxious to overcome the difficulties to which my hon. Friend referred, as I know equally well will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he visits the United States to see President Clinton and others later this month.

Mr. Derek Enright: Further to an earlier question, will the Leader of the House entice the President of the Board of Trade to the Dispatch Box to give openly to the House the news that he is deliberately leaking to newspapers about the 31 pits? Does not the Leader of the House consider it an absolute disgrace that in those leaks the President of the Board of Trade is taking his own side for granted in suggesting that they will troop through the Lobbies like sheep behind him? Is not the President of the Board of Trade holding the whole House in contempt by communicating with newspapers rather than with the House, and will he please stop playing ducks and drakes with miners' families?

Mr. Newton: I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is responsible for the stories to which the hon. Gentleman refers or that he is taking anyone for granted. He is working very carefully and thoroughly to produce a properly thought-out White Paper. As for enticing him here, he is already committed to being here next Wednesday to answer questions.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend dig deep into the archives to see when we last had a debate on the arts? I suspect that it must be a year, if not two years, since we had a full and proper debate and I think it is time that we debated the strategy of the new Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council since the publication of its strategy—or would it be better for me to table an amendment to the European Communities Bill?

Mr. Newton: The veiled threat in my hon. Friend's last remark—perhaps it was not even veiled—might give me some encouragement. As it is, however, despite that veiled or unveiled threat, I will simply take note of my hon. Friend's request.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I recognise that the Leader of the House has set aside some considerable time next week for Scottish business, but does he accept that one of the critical current issues facing us is the future of the legal aid system in Scotland? Given that the Government propose to alter this legislation on 1 April, with huge reductions in access to legal aid, thereby restricting the ability of the most vulnerable sections of our community to obtain legal assistance, can he tell us what procedures the Government will follow? Will we have statutory instruments, will we have a motion, will we have a debate, and will there be an opportunity for us to consider this very important matter?

Mr. Newton: As I think the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will shortly be laying regulations and it seems highly likely that there will be occasion for a debate in the light of the point that the hon. Lady and others have made. I will just remind her, as I reminded another questioner a week or two ago, that in total some 48 per cent. of households—very nearly half of all households—will remain financially eligible for legal aid.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: In view of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for municipal gutters, could we have a debate on ethics in local government and discuss the recent reports from boroughs such as Lambeth, Hackney, Peterborough and Monklands, which have been in the news and are all Labour-controlled authorities?

Mr. Newton: There appears to be some support on my own Benches, including from some in very high places, for such a debate. Despite that, however, I will once again take note of my hon. Friend's very reasonable request.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What is the likelihood of an early statement being made by, say, the President of the Board of Trade, or even the Prime Minister, about the building of a replacement vessel for the elderly royal yacht Britannia? Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a belief gaining ground throughout the United Kingdom that the Prime Minister has made a promise to the Queen and the royal family that they shall have such a vessel built for them? I wish to point out, as a Member representing a traditional shipbuilding constituency, that this would be taken very badly amiss—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with next week's business.

Dr. Godman: I asked for an early statement.

Madam Speaker: Good. That is where it should have ended.

Mr. Newton: In view of your steer, Madam Speaker, I shall say only that I cannot promise an early statement.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Although my right hon. Friend has said that he might not be able to find time next week for a debate on the conduct of some of our privatised industries, will he reconsider his answer? It would enable many of my colleagues to talk about the turnround of our former nationalised industries and the fact that, whereas they were a burden on the taxpayer, costing about £3 billion a year, they now contribute to the Exchequer, have improved productivity, are much more


efficient and provide a better service to the customer. Would not such a debate enable us to prove what a great benefit they are to this country?

Mr. Newton: That is a very helpful question. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade might find it more helpful were it asked next Wednesday instead of some of the questions that it seems likely he might be asked.

Mr. David Winnick: Instead of the proposed business for Monday week, would it be possible to have a general debate on Maastricht so that the Government could give us their assessment of the inclusion of the social chapter and its implications? Does not the Cabinet appreciate the advice that Lord Tebbit has given Tory Members of Parliament on how to proceed?

Mr. Newton: Whenever I have been in the Chamber during the first 11 days of debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, people have usually found it possible to make general observations whatever the specific subject under discussion.

Mr. David Alton: What point is there in general observations about the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? What chance is there of making progress if the Government intend to drop the entire treaty if the social charter were to be included by a majority of the House? Will the Leader of the House make it clear whether that is the Government's intention?

Mr. Newton: I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on radio. He said:
We can't ratify a treaty other than the one we negotiated; we don't intend to join Britain into a treaty which includes proposals and ideas which we think are destructive to British jobs".

Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1370?
[That this House acknowledges the invaluable work carried out by REUNITE on behalf of those who suffer child abduction; and urges the Government not to terminate its grant to REUNITE on 31st March 1993.]
It is an all-party motion dealing with Reunite, the National Council for Abducted Children. The Government intend to withdraw the organisation's grant, thereby causing the collapse of the only advice service to Government and non-governmental agencies in Britain on the 1,200 children a year who are abducted illegally from Great Britain and held hostage in many countries throughout the world. More than 100 hon. Members have been assisted by Reunite to trace and identify children who have been stolen from their constituencies. Would it not be outrageous if the Government's decision were carried out because it would mean the demise of an organisation committed to the return of the children of British citizens who have been abducted illegally?

Mr. Newton: As I am not familiar with the exact state of play in any negotiations that might be taking place, I shall confine myself to saying that it is not uncommon for the Government—I have been involved in this work in various ministerial capacities—to provide funds on a start-up or pump-priming basis. I understand that, in 1989, the Home Office voluntary service unit agreed to fund Reunite temporarily to help it establish itself and find other sources of support.

Points of Order

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been a tradition of the House that on Thursday afternoons, after Prime Minister's Question Time, we automatically have the business statement for the following week and then any other statements, the only exception being if there is a private notice question. Has there been a change in the procedure to enable the Prime Minister to make a statement on royal finances before the business statement, because normally he should have made it after? Does the Prime Minister have precedence over the rest of the House?

Madam Speaker: Any statement by the Prime Minister always takes precedence over other statements.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A fortnight ago, I was called to ask a question on the business statement. Last week, because I had a message from the Leader of the House saying that he was still considering my question about the Nimmo Smith/Friel report, I did not ask the question. Since then the Leader of the House has been given a transcript of a newspaper office record that throws the very gravest doubt on the findings in this highly sensitive report. Will the right hon. Gentleman have an opportunity to report to the House of Commons? If this is said outside the House of Commons, we shall be subject to litigation.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the question he has just asked is one that, had he caught my eye, he might have put to the Leader of the House. I give the hon. Gentleman a number of opportunities to put questions. Regrettably, I could not do so today.

Mr David Trimble: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the importance to Back Benchers on both sides of the House of the business statement and of the questions that follow it. I appreciate that the practice is to give the Prime Minister precedence when he has to make a statement after Prime Minister's questions—a practice that was quite understandable today in view of the significance of the subject. Is it possible, however, to ensure that that practice will not prejudice the interests of Back Benchers who wish to raise matters following the business statement and that in the rather exceptional circumstances in which the Prime Minister has to make such a statement we shall get extra time for business questions?

Madam Speaker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is seeking. It is is my custom to attempt to call the Whips of minority parties. I did so today in the case of his own party. Regrettably, I cannot call all Members following the business statement.

BILLS PRESENTED

WEDDINGS

Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, presented a Bill to make new provision regarding marriages; to provide for marriages to be solemnised in any place and at any time by a duly authorised person; to provide for the registration of authorised persons; and for


connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 March, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Bill Walker presented a Bill to increase the penalties for certain offences under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Community Care

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I beg to move,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 6) (House of Commons Paper No. 404), which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
The report sets out the proposed allocation of special grants to local authorities for the financial year beginning 1 April for expenditure on community care services, as defined in section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. It also describes the main features of the grant and the conditions that we intend to attach to it.
It may be helpful if I sketch the background to the report and say a word about our community care policy generally. The changes that are being introduced in April represent the achievement of a goal that was set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" in 1989. They follow two earlier stages of the implementation of our community care policy—the first in 1991, when we introduced arm's-length inspection units and greatly improved local authority complaints procedures; the second in April 1992, when, for the first time, we required the publication of community care plans by every local authority with responsibility for social services. The community care plans will be published annually from now on.
The significance of the changes that we shall make in April this year, however, lies in the fact that, perhaps for the first time, services will be tailored to meet need rather than, as, I am afraid, has tended to happen sometimes in the past, modifying needs to fit the services that happen to be available. The policy represents a coherent and properly funded approach to community care. It will guarantee for individuals who need services a choice between improved domiciliary and day care services at home and care in a homely setting for as long as possible, but where people are unable to stay at home they will be placed in appropriate residential accommodation. That will be achieved primarily through the process of individual assessment, which must by law not only examine the needs of every individual but take account of the person's wishes. Secondly and very importantly, it will take account of the needs and wishes of any carers who may be helping the individual to live at home.
We have four principal objectives in pursuing this policy. The first is that better consideration should be given to the alternatives to residential care. It has been common ground that one weakness of the present system, which allows people to obtain higher rates of income support to finance their entry into residential or nursing homes, is that sometimes people have been placed in those homes without full consideration of their individual needs and, in particular, without proper examination of whether, through the provision of additional domiciliary or day care services, they could be enabled to remain in their homes longer.
The second objective of the policy is the promotion of improved domiciliary, day and respite care services. I attach particular importance to the improvement of respite care. Anyone who has had personal knowledge of the burden which literally million of voluntary carers shoulder willingly will recognise that one way—perhaps the best way—of enabling them to continue shouldering


that burden is through the greater availability of respite care. It may be for a week a month or only a week a year for someone who is not carrying such a big burden, but one of the best changes this April will be the removal of the perverse incentive which discourages local authorities from paying for respite care.
The third objective is the encouragement of the purchaser-provider split. That split, which has already shown its value in the health service reforms that were implemented two years ago, will bring forth even greater and faster benefits to community care. The marketplace—the mixed economy—is already better developed in social services. There is already healthy competition between providers of social services in the independent sector.
The fourth objective is to ensure that we create a flourishing independent sector. We want a variety of organisations—voluntary organisations and private for-profit organisations—to compete in the marketplace. One consequence is that standards will continue to rise, as they have done in the past 10 years, in the residential sector and elsewhere. It will also widen the choice available to individuals. Of course, through the statutory direction on choice we have built in a binding requirement on local authorities to honour, within certain practical limitations about cost levels, the preferences expressed by individuals. Not only will standards rise and choice widen, but we will see better value for money as a result of a flourishing independent sector.
The key to success in all this will be the greatest level of co-operation within the statutory sector between local authorities and health authorities. We will not accept any attempts by one agency or the other to pass the buck for responsibility for individual clients. It will also, however, require co-operation between the statutory agencies and the independent sector. I am glad that in many parts of the country there is evidence that such co-operation is building up, although I will have a little more to say in due course about the need for improved consultation with the independent sector by individual local authorities.
The whole policy is being introduced against the background of a two thirds real increase in social services spending since 1979. There has been a massive injection of resources all over the country, and the special grant report reflects that progress. The precondition of the payment of the grants to local authorities was that, by 31 December last year, every local authority should sign, jointly with the relevant health authorities covering the districts where they were both responsible, an agreement setting out the way in which, first, they will handle arrangements for the discharge of patients from hospital and, secondly, the way in which the purchase of long-term nursing home beds will be handled. I am glad to say that every local authority reached that deadline and satisfied the precondition.
The settlement with which the policy is being funded has demonstrated the Government's commitment, and the way in which we have honoured our pledge, to finance the policy in an adequate—I would say generous—fashion. The settlement comprises three elements. The first is the transfer of £399 million from the Department of Social Security. That figure, which was arrived at after detailed analysis and consultation, represents the money that the Department of Social Security would have spent in 1993–94 on higher rates of income support for people needing residential or nursing home care had there been no change to the policy.
In addition, we have allocated a further £140 million which is totally new money. It is additional to the resources that would have been spent if the policy had not changed. That £140 million will enable local authorities to improve the assessment procedures because, as I said, they are at the heart of the way in which we shall ensure that individual needs are assessed and met.
It will also enable local authorities to improve the day, domiciliary and respite care services which they make available to those who do not need any residential placement. It will also enable local authorities to meet any additional costs of fees for placements that they may make where those fee levels are higher than the higher rates of income support settled by the Department of Social Security.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the funding issue. Has he received representations recently from the Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils on its view, shared with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, that there is an overall funding shortfall of £135 million?

Mr. Yeo: I shall deal with the shortfall after I have sketched in the third element in the transfer, which is the £26 million being made available to local authorities to pay for clients who previously would have been handled under the independent living fund.
There have been suggestions from local authority associations about the adequacy of funding for the policy as a whole, in particular in relation to the costs which may arise where placements are made to homes whose charges are in excess of the higher rates of income support. The Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have commented on the matter. I regard the claims that they have made—that the policy is underfunded to the extent of £250 million—as totally bogus. Indeed, the AMA greeted my right hon. Friend's announcement in October last year with what can only be described as a wave of scaremongering.
It said that the cash shortfall would put 12,000 elderly and disabled people at risk of not receiving services. Unfounded claims such as that succeed only in frightening and worrying some of society's most vulnerable people. The AMA's figures do not add up. They assume that the numbers of elderly and disabled will grow exponentially. The curve of the AMA's graph goes through the roof, creating by September 1995 another 56,000 people—they do not actually exist—apparently needing residential care.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I was pressing the Minister to comment on the claim of his political colleagues in local government that there was a gap of £135 million.

Mr. Yeo: I am explaining why the claims are exaggerated. As I say, the numbers are unfounded. The figures are in sharp contrast to ours, which were based on a cautious assumption—perhaps I should put it the other way round and say they were based on the generous assumption—that by September 1995—[Interruption.] I am making a serious point.
We analysed carefully the numbers of people who would be likely to need services. We had regard to the rate of hospital discharge and demographic considerations. We then added to the figures produced by those two trends another 37,000 people, and we assumed that that number would be seeking services from local authorities. But even


those figures are substantially lower than those used by the local authority associations, and it is there that a substantial part of the difference between our figures and theirs arises.
Next year, directors of social services will have at their disposal £565 million for reform, money that has been ring-fenced to ensure that it reaches its target. If councils want to spend even more on community care, they can draw on their own resources. The personal social services standard spending assessment now runs at more than £5 billion a year.

Miss Joan Lestor: The Minister will recall the commitment that was given about ring-fencing community care funds for mental health illness and for drug and alcohol abuse centres. That ring-fenced funding was later removed. What guarantee have we that the ring-fenced funding to which he has referred will be implemented?

Mr. Yeo: The specific grant for mental illness, now up to more than £31 million—raised by about 10 per cent. for 1993–94—has been an important element in the funding of local authority provision for people with mental illness. That is a specific grant for those services. There is a specific grant, of about £2.2 million, for alcohol and drug treatment. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is referring to the decision not to ring-fence the funding of residential treatment centres for alcohol and drug abusers. That decision is at present the subject of judicial review. The outcome of those proceedings will be known probably early next week, so it is difficult for me to say more on the subject now.
For that reason, I had intended later to point out—it may be convenient if I deal with the matter now—that the total figure in the special grant report is £20 million less than the £565 million that we are allocating in total to local authorities for the funding of community care. We shall make that £20 million available to local authorities and say how it will be distributed as soon as the present legal process has been completed.
The method of distributing the grant was discussed at length and attracted much interest from local authorities. I believe that we have arrived at the fairest possible method. We are not expecting too radical, too destabilising or too swift a change from the status quo but instead are making a smooth transition towards the achievement of our goal of reflecting in the distribution formula need, preserving individual choice and enabling care to be carried out at home.
As I say, we have attached conditions to the payment of the grant, the first being the ring-fenced condition, and that has been widely welcomed. It will not apply in perpetuity. We believe that after three years the policy will be sufficiently integrated within the totality of social services provision, and by that stage it will be an erosion of local authority discretion to continue to apply ring fencing.
The second condition which we shall apply is the requirement that 85 per cent. of the money being transferred from social security should be spent by local authorities purchasing services from the independent sector. We attach the greatest possible importance to that condition. We believe that there is already a valuable history of independent sector residential care provision on

which we can build. But the condition does not apply only to the purchase of residential services. Local authorities will also be able to satisfy it by purchasing from the independent sector domiciliary, day and respite care services.
I hope that the whole independent sector will seize the opportunity offered to expand its activities in that area. The statutory sector cannot and should not work alone. I expect to see the independent sector taking on more of the work traditionally associated with local government.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My I press the Minister on the consistency of two of the factors that he has mentioned—the Government's apparent desire to ensure that people are not forced unnecessarily into care and to stimulate domiciliary alternatives to care, and the requirement to spend 85 per cent. of the DSS money in any one area on the independent sector? How do those factors square with the fact that, to my knowledge, many parts of the country have no independent domiciliary sector whatever? They do not seem to square.

Mr. Yeo: The reason why, I fear, some parts of the country have no independent domiciliary provision is the deep and enduring hostility of the local authorities to independent sector providers of all kinds, especially the private sector. In areas where there has been a more open-minded and rational approach to the provision of social services, there is no great difficulty in finding independent sector providers of all kinds of community care. The new condition was announced last October, although we have modified and slightly relaxed it after consultation. I hope that it will mean that, even in the past four and a half months, local authorities have been discussing with the independent sector how they can stimulate such provision.
All that will help to make community care plans needs-led rather than service-led. We shall not tolerate the use of the money for some empire-building exercise by local authorities for their own service provision. I hope that we shall thereby reduce the scope for the incompetence, mismanagement and fraud which, sadly, has occurred in a few local authorities, and which besmirches the reputation of local government as a whole.
If the independent sector provision is to be fully realised, local authorities must collaborate. The study by KPMG which we commissioned last year, in support of the conclusions of our own monitoring exercise, showed significant shortcomings in local authority consultation with the independent sector. That is not an option; it is essential. We have therefore issued two statutory directions to strengthen the requirement to consult.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I am still puzzled by the fact that 85 per cent. of the money is to go to the independent sector. Essentially, although not always, that means the private sector, so let us use proper vocabulary. Instead of 85 per cent. of the money going predominantly to the private sector, would a wise policy not be to ensure that 100 per cent. of it went to good services, whatever their source?

Mr. Yeo: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has some knowledge of such matters, claims that the independent sector is really the same as the private sector. It most certainly is not. Before entering the House I spent the latter years of my working life in what one might call


the real world as a full-time employee of a large voluntary organisation supplying services extensively to local authorities. Many other voluntary organisations do the same.
It is absurd to suggest that we can use the term "private sector" to cover the work of Age Concern, Mencap, the Spastics Society and many other distinguished voluntary organisations, which are now increasingly substantial suppliers of services under contract to local authorities. Of course, it is because we want all the money to be spent on good services that we are determined to ensure that most of it is spent in the independent sector. As I said at the beginning of my speech, that is the best safeguard, that is what will deliver higher standards, value for money and wider choice.

Mr. Wicks: Why?

Mr. Yeo: Local authorities have been given the challenge of making the reforms work. They have been given the cash that they need. They have had the help of the community care support force. It is now up to them. The success of community care rests on the directors of social services. They are used to managing change, and the community care support force is issuing practical guidance to assist local authorities if unexpected eventualities arise.
The report brings those long-awaited reforms to the brink of implementation. That progress has been achieved in co-operation with most local authorities and health authorities. I pay tribute to their efforts. The benefits of the policy will be felt throughout the country by vulnerable and needy people and their families and friends. I commend the report to the House.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Tonight the House has what will probably be the only opportunity—certainly the only opportunity in Government time—to debate before April the implementation of the changes due to take place in the arrangements for community care. The formula before us in Special Grant Report (No. 6) sets out the reality of community care in the next financial year—a reality in stark and marked contrast to the media hype about the likely impact of the changes which emanated from Richmond house until shortly after the general election.
Before 9 April 1992, the then Secretary of State and the junior Ministers were telling us in glowing terms how the delayed new arrangements would improve the lot of all and sundry. They talked about the avoidance of unnecessary institutional care—the Minister mentioned that again tonight—about recognition of the needs of users and carers, and about choice. Those statements gave renewed hope to users and carers, pressure groups and voluntary organisations, and providers in the public, private and independent sectors. April 1993 would be a new dawn, an end to what had been for many people years of private personal struggle and uncertainty.
When the election was over, a new message began to emerge from Richmond house. I am sorry that the Minister for reduced expectations—otherwise known as the Minister for Health—is not here tonight. He was wheeled into action to tell us all to modify our vision of the future after April 1993, and his message was reinforced in writing to local authorities: "Play it down, folks, and don't be unrealistic."
One or two Opposition Members have been criticised for not being realistic about what would happen after April, and for having said for some time that not only may April fail to herald much-needed long-overdue support for a vast number of people in desperate need, but that the circumstances of some users and carers could get worse. It take no pleasure in saying that the report before the House, detailing the manner in which the changes are to be implemented, substantiates and reinforces those concerns.
It is important to remind ourselves of the reason for the changes due in April, of the real motivation behind the community care elements in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The central purpose of the whole exercise was to unravel the incredible mess that the Government had got themselves into over the ever-increasing cost of income support payments to residents in private care. They wanted to unravel the social and—more importantly, from the Government's point of view—financial consequences of an ill thought out free market experiment in welfare which began in 1981.
That experiment took the DSS budget for supplementary benefit and income support from £11 million when the Government came to power to a staggering £2.4 billion in the current financial year, and reinstated institutional provision as the central plank of Government thinking on the care of old people. The number of places in care homes has shot way beyond any demographic increase in the number of elderly and very elderly people. That experiment shunted people into permanent care when, sometimes at half the cost to the public purse, many of them could have had what they really wanted—services geared to their remaining in their own homes.
The free market experiment encouraged dependence by rewarding moves towards more intensive nursing provision rather than rehabilitation. I have received representations from people whose relatives have moved from their care to the nursing sections of jointly registered homes for one reason only—that those honourable people in the private sector whom the Minister so crudely compared with corrupt local authorities had moved them to obtain more money for caring for them, although they did not need that nursing care.
Neither the DSS nor the Department of Health has addressed those issues. That free market experiment left thousands of old people without a penny to their names, using their own pocket money and begging subsidies from relatives and charities to meet the cost of their care. All right hon. and hon. Members have heard of similar cases, and every case is an individual tragedy. It was a free market experiment which led to the Government being defeated by their own Back Benchers because of the enormous public outcry about its human consequences.
We are here tonight to unravel the consequences of free market ideology being applied to the circumstances of some of our most vulnerable citizens—an unholy mess which has resulted in the gross misuse of millions of pounds of scarce public resources and, more importantly, has caused genuine distress and suffering to people who through no fault of their own are forced to look to the Government for their care and security.
It would be nice to say that the Government have learnt their lesson and that the community care changes will extract us once and for all from the results of the shambles, and that demented old people will no longer be shunted from the middle of London to questionable private placements in the Yorkshire dales. To use the parlance of


the Select Committee on Health, old ladies in Dulwich will have the chance to stay in Dulwich rather than going to Clacton. The concept of choice should not be simply, "Which private home do you want to enter?" but, "Would you and your carer like to choose for you not to enter a home?" That is real and proper choice, and it is the choice that people want.
The report, however, tells us something different. It tells us quite clearly that, apart from shunting the funding problems on to local authorities, the Government are opting for the status quo. Having launched the free market experiment, in facing the consequences the Government are clearly more concerned with the interests of private providers of care than with the interests of users and carers.
The Special Grant Report (No. 6) says loud and clear that Government policy in the implementation of community care changes is completely provider-led—private provider-led.
Nowhere is that more graphically illustrated than in the calculation of the distribution of the special grant. Half the social security transfer element is being distributed to authorities in proportion to income support expenditure in respect of the numbers of individuals in private residential care and nursing homes in their areas.

Mr. Yeo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we offer local authority associations the opportunity for that part of the distribution calculation to be adjusted for migration from the area from which an individual came to the area where they were being cared for?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I was aware that discussions had taken place, but the Government have to answer the central accusation that the entire reform is geared to the status quo—to retaining the problems that we have had for the past decade as a result of the Government's commitment to floating the free market in care, and that those problems will continue after April.
When I expand on the point I was making, the Minister will understand my concerns about the formula. It takes no account whatever of the fact that, under the guise of what the Government have termed community care, older people and the disabled are frequently being placed in permanent settings many miles away from their own home areas. The Minister must recognise that.
Private care homes have developed where entrepreneurs have seen suitable properties, and not necessarily where the local population has presented a demand. Numerous private hotels and boarding houses in coastal resorts in the south-east, for example, have been converted for the care of older people and residents of psychiatric hospitals. In many instances, they have been filled with people from London who have been forced to move from their own homes and home areas due to lack of domiciliary support or suitable accommodation in their own communities.
The fact that the Government have chosen to concentrate future funding in the areas where those people have gone rather than where they have come from compounds the obvious mistakes arising from provision being determined almost entirely by the market. The new funding system clearly assumes that older people or the disabled will continue to be placed often 60 or 70 miles or

more away from their home areas and their families. Rather than funding the changed system on the basis of known populations and needs, enabling the development of genuine care in the community, the Government have proved themselves to be concerned more with the continued commercial interests of the market.
The practical consequences will be obvious to those right hon. and hon. Members who have considered what the figures in the distribution of April's funding mean for their constituencies. For some inner-London boroughs, currently with minimal care beds, the opportunity to develop alternatives to sending people many miles from home are frankly non-existent. It is no real consolation for an older or disabled person in inner London to be told that they now have a choice of which home they wish to enter when, as a result of Government policy, the choice is Clacton, Brighton or 200 miles away in the Yorkshire dales.
It is not just in inner London that the nonsense of funding distribution arrangements occur. In my own area in west Yorkshire, we can compare the positions of two similar adjacent local authorities, Bradford and Leeds. I am not making a party political point because, fortunately, both councils are Labour-controlled.
Bradford has 80,000 people of pensionable age, 30,000 of whom are over 75; Leeds has 130,000 people of pensionable age, of whom 50,000 are over 75; yet the Government's funding system gives Bradford £60 for each pensioner and £158 for each one over 75, while Leeds gets £38 and £101 respectively. Any objective assessment would conclude that Leeds is likely to need greater community care resources, but the Government's formula rewards Bradford simply because that area has more properties suitable for conversion into care homes. It is as simple as that.
Conservative Members may be heavily into Victorian values, but is it right that the location of mill owners' mansions in the 1800s should provide the basis for community care funding more than a century later? Is it right that many of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members should continue to be placed away from their home areas because the Government's funding system is, frankly, plain daft?
Having dealt with the sublime, I will move on to the ridiculous. As the Special Grant Report (No. 6) indicates, in addition to basing their calculations of 50 per cent. of the special grant on the random location of existing private care beds, the Government are determined that 85 per cent. of the social security transfer element mentioned by the Minister must be spent on purchasing care within what they call the independent sector. The fact that the Government backed off their original intention for 75 per cent. of the overall funding to be committed in that way is evidence of the fact that there might just be someone left at the Department of Health with a grip, albeit limited, on reality.
No Opposition Member objects in any way to attempts to develop independent community care provision which has relevance to advancing the rights of users and carers and genuinely improves their choice, but does not the vast bulk of independent sector care, even after the Government have spent sizeable amounts trying to stimulate domiciliary provision, consist of private residential and nursing homes? Would it not have made more sense to be sure there were independent sector


alternatives to institutional care in every area before requiring the expenditure of that proportion of the funding?
I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to examine the practicalities of the requirements for such expenditure in their constituencies. They will probably find, as I do, that it positively obstructs the ability of local people to address after April local priorities in terms of community care needs.
To be parochial for a moment, the principal agenda item in terms of community care needs in my constituency is a radical improvement in day care facilities for young adults with learning difficulties. I have had numerous meetings with desperate parents who, once full-time education ends, frequently find themselves left alone to cope. The local authority recognises that the excellent adult training centre at Lawefield lane in my constituency has insufficient resources to meet the demands. The local authority simply does not have the funding to expand the centre and employ more staff. April should have been about meeting the needs of such young people and their parents, but the funding formula prevents the local authority from tackling such urgent priorities in the most obvious way—by paying for the expansion of the existing centre and additional staff. Instead, it will have to buy from a frankly non-existent private sector because the Government put ideology before common sense.
The independent sector may eventually devise a scheme to help, but it could take years. In the meantime, parents and their sons and daughters are left to struggle. Frankly, I do not think that that is good enough, and how it all fits in with the concept of choice is beyond me. The choice of my constituents is improved public provision. What about the right to choose local authority care and good quality local authority public services? Where is the choice when people no longer have a local authority home in the area in which they live because it has been closed?
The other side of the Government's agenda is all too clear. While they positively discriminate towards so-called independent providers—to the obvious detriment, in some respects, of users and carers—they discriminate against public provision. It is right to apply the same standards to local authority residential care as we do to the private sector, hut the same Government who require those consistent standards then prevent local authorities from making the investment needed to upgrade their establishments.
What we have is a back-door method of closing council homes and reducing the choice about which the Government talk so much. The narrow application of the concept of choice means that people entering local authority care homes are excluded from receiving the new residential allowance. That is blatant dogmatic discrimination by a Government who are attempting to prop up and stimulate the private care market through the systematic destruction of public sector provision.
What choice will there be after April for those with drug and alcohol problems, in the light of the Government's decision to renege on the ring fencing of funding for drug and alcohol projects? As projects close, the choice for sufferers will be a police cell, prison or the streets; and for some, unfortunately, it will be the mortuary.

Mr. Yeo: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how any of the policies that we are debating will prevent local

authorities from buying any services that they consider appropriate to the needs of the drug and alcohol abusers? Where is the obstacle?

Mr. Hinchliffe: If the hon. Gentleman lives in the real world, he will recognise that, when authorities are taking decisions on the expenditure of restricted sums of money and the choice is between, say, the placement of an elderly lady in a care home and the placing of an alcoholic or drug addict, it is a good bet that they will go for the elderly lady: in some people's eyes it is an issue of who is deserving and who is not. Is the Minister aware that a survey of 67 drug and alcohol agencies in the voluntary sector providing 1,300 bed spaces shows that 70 per cent. will start losing income in April and 46 per cent. will no longer be viable by the end of July 1993?
I am conscious of the fact that we are talking today without knowing what the outcome of the application for the judicial review will be at 10.30 on Monday morning. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government have been dragged into the courts on an issue which any human being can see is of great concern. I was in the Chamber when a former Secretary of State gave a clear commitment to ring fencing. I remember the hon. Gentleman's words well. He gave a commitment—I stress this point—on the back of huge pressure from his Back Benchers, including hon. Members who are here today. The Government's logic on this issue is frankly beyond me, and beyond belief.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand it. Basically, he is saying that any human being would take the view which he takes. Surely, "any human being" includes local councillors, and therefore local councillors could well take that decision if they chose to do so. In Kent, the local authority has chosen to ring-fence for a year, and we shall see what happens at the end of that 12 months. To push the decision up from the local authority to central Government merely on the basis that somehow central Government are human beings and local authorities are not seems to fly in the face of much of what I have often heard the hon. Gentleman say.

Mr. Hinchliffe: In a sense, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent has missed the real problem with these projects. He will know that many of the projects in London and in areas such as Leeds, which I know well—the detoxification centre—and other similar excellent organisations in Bradford and elsewhere, take in people who are not residents of the local authority in the area involved. The key issue is getting those other local authorities, which may have no real knowledge of the work of organisations such as the alcohol recovery project in London, to take seriously the work that they do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and I spent some time visiting the projects and looking at some of the issues which people involved with them are worried about at present. I have seen one or two of the people who are benefiting from the present policy.

Ms. Tessa Jowell: Does my hon. Friend accept that the dispute about the funding of services for drug addicts and alcoholics underlines the Government's inconsistency in the policy? The agencies which provide the care want precisely the same stability that the Government have undertaken with regard to private residential care for elderly people—that is, for the money


to go where the people currently live. Does not that reveal that the Government are applying different standards to private residential care provided for elderly people and to voluntary organisations providing care and rehabilitation for drug and alcohol misusers?

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the inconsistency between the Government's policy on this and their policy on the so-called independent sector providers to whom she referred. When I visited one of the projects recently, I met a woman who was receiving treatment for a drink problem. That woman has two children who are currently in care, and I know that the work that that project is doing will enable her to return home and be with her children.
If the Government's current illogical position is based on attempting to save money, it is completely the wrong way round. By failing to ring-fence those projects, resulting in the closure of a number of projects along the lines predicted in the survey, the Government are forcing up public expenditure on the prison service, the hospital service and young children in care, regardless of the human consequences.
Even at this late stage, I sincerely hope that the Minister will have a rethink during the debate. I am well aware that there is equal concern on the Conservative Back Benches about the way in which the Government have gone back on their previous commitments. I urge the Minister to consider why, over the past few years, the term "community care" has become in a sense a byword for neglect. In many people's eyes, it is an excuse for the Government to make savings and to release resources for the use of the Exchequer.
The Government should realise that, for many people, the Ben Silcock case raises questions other than those which were subsequently addressed by the Secretary of State. Such questions included the right to asylum facilities within the community, not locked away from the community; proper after-care for mentally ill people who leave hospital; joint funding for community care plans which does not taper down to nothing, as so much joint funding does; strategic planning involving everyone, including the user and his or her family.
The Minister used to work for the Spastics Society. I am sure that he will have seen the report which came out yesterday, produced jointly by the Royal College of Nursing and the Spastics Society. The report made it clear that the process of strategic planning had been made far more difficult by the deliberate erection of barriers and the creation of competition between arms of health and care services—for example, with the advent of trusts and the new health market.
When the 1990 Act was going through the House, some of us pointed out that its health and community care elements were contradictory. Millions of people are now looking to April, desperately hoping for answers to some of the problems that I have outlined and hoping for urgent change, but what hope is there for the new system when local authorities under both Labour and Conservative control point to a huge shortfall in the funding contained in the report before us today? I have talked to senior Conservative councillors who are deeply worried about what the changes will mean for people in their areas.
What are the prospects for the implementation of the new system when, as the Association of Directors of Social Services demonstrated recently, the vast majority of local authorities expect real cuts in their social services budgets in the new financial year? It became clear in the Health Select Committee recently that the Government had no plans to monitor the implementation of the reforms, so is it any wonder that users and carers—I meet people in various groups on a regular basis—are asking whether the Government really care? The impression is being given that, frankly, they do not.
What could have been achieved if, instead of the privatised welfare experiment in the 1980s and early 1990s the Government had been prepared to think out the use of the nearly £10 billion being spent on what Griffiths called perverse incentives to enter private institutional care? What could have been achieved if, instead of undermining the ability of local authorities and voluntary organisations to offer alternatives to institutional care, the Government had been prepared to invest in what people really want, which is help to remain independent rather than incentives to give up the ghost? What could have been achieved if concepts such as that underpinning the independent living fund had been developed and extended instead of being allowed to degenerate into the present shambles?
A few weeks away from April, severely disabled people, voluntary organisations, local authorities and, it seems, the Government have not the least idea how the new system will operate. The dogmatic obsession with the market means that the community care funding contained in the report will largely miss its real target. The Government have allowed the private institutional tail to wag the community care dog, and the real losers will be the users and carers who so urgently need a radically different agenda.

Mr. Roger Sims: As we have been reminded, the report is another—and perhaps, before April, the last—step towards the implementation of an Act that was passed by the House more than two years ago. I recall sitting with several other hon. Members who are in the Chamber this evening on the Committee that considered the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. My recollection is that, while there was a good deal of controversy about the national health service part of the Bill, there was general support for the philosophy behind community care, as set out in the Bill. There might have been discussions about the detail, but there was general support in the Committee and the House for the idea of community care.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) spent so much time demonstrating the antipathy to the private sector for which he is well known. It was perhaps hardly surprising.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect in terms of his commitment to social services issues, for giving way. My antipathy is not to the private sector: it is to a Government who distort the allocation of funding in social services in the direction of the private sector, at the expense of the public sector and care in the voluntary sector, which is often dependent on council support. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that point.

Mr. Sims: I will simply modify my remarks and say that the hon. Gentleman's prejudice clouds his assessment of Government policy.
When the Bill received its Third Reading, I was disappointed that we were told, and had not been told until then, that although the NHS part of the Bill would be implemented a few months later, implementation of the community care part of the Act would be deferred for a couple of years. Having said that, I am bound to say that the preparations for community care have proved extremely complex. A great deal of work needed to be done and has been done. Indeed, credit for the successful preparation for the Act is due in no small measure to the diligence of several officials in the Department of Health who have been extremely busy issuing guidance, holding seminars and so on about how the Act is to be carried into effect.
Perhaps I could also compliment the community care task force, which has done an effective job and was a useful idea. It sent people with knowledge of the detail of community care out to local authorities to assist them in making their preparations. Perhaps in his reply my hon. Friend the Minister will say a word about the future of the task force. There seems to be a question mark over whether it will continue after 1 April. I should have thought that, having shown its value in the preparatory stage, something akin to the task force, if not the same body, might continue, at least in a fire-fighting capacity. It would serve a useful purpose.
Special credit must go to all the people in local authorities and other organisations who have been responsible for putting the community care policy into practice. Any hon. Member who has had the opportunity to discuss the matter with local authority officers, officials in local voluntary organisations and so on will realise the enormous amount of work that has been done in preparation for 1 April, over and above people's normal duties, which, in the case of social services departments, are extensive. The success or otherwise of the community care provisions will depend on what happens locally. It will depend on organisations, local authorities, health authorities, the private sector, the voluntary sector and the individuals involved working together. We must wish them well as they progress towards what I suppose we might describe as C Day.
The report that we are discussing arrives not before time. It has been difficult for local authorities to make their detailed plans without knowing what central Government funding they will receive. They were told the global sum in October. They had some information about the funding, but only in this report do they know the final figures.
Indeed, I was with my own director of social services only this morning. He had not yet seen the report, so I was able to hand him a copy. He found that my borough was to receive £103,000 less than the earlier figures suggested. I suppose that, in budgets of millions, that is not significant, but it demonstrates the difficulties under which local authorities have had to work. I shall not go too far in comparing the relationship between local authorities and central Government with the way in which commerce and industry would work in similar circumstances.
Part of the grant recognises the extra costs that local authorities will incur in implementing community care: that is distinct from the transfer of the income support element. If the policy works out as we all hope that it will, the amount of social care in the community will increase

and funds to cover that will be needed. The amount of health care in the community will also increase. If we are giving local authorities extra funds to meet their extra costs, may we know what extra funds the health authorities will receive to meet their share? Should we not expect, in due course, a report giving details of a special grant for them?
My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised if I draw attention to the basis on which the grant was calculated and to which the hon. Member for Wakefield has already referred. According to paragraph 3(a) of the report,
50 per cent. of the social security transfer element has been distributed between authorities in proportion to Income Support expenditure in respect of individuals in residential care and nursing homes in their area.
I think that the hon. Member for Wakefield used the word "private", which does not appear in the report. Perhaps that is another illustration of his prejudice. Not all residential and nursing homes are private; some are run by voluntary organisations and others by local authorities—not necessarily in their own local authority area.
The point is, however, that the money is to be distributed according to where the recipients live, rather than where they come from. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that must disadvantage certain areas—for example, parts of both inner and outer London—from which a number of recipients of income support have moved to Kent, Sussex and Surrey, not necessarily as a result of compulsion. The authorities involved will receive a larger share of the income support tranche than they would have otherwise, while authorities in inner and outer London will lose.
My authority estimates that some 400,000 elderly people have moved out of the borough into homes in areas such as those that I have cited. A large amount of money has probably been lost because of the use of the formula that we are discussing.

Mr. Rowe: That important point should not be confined to community care. In the Medway health authority area, for instance, we had to struggle with an unsatisfactory funding arrangement which was weighted excessively towards older people moving into areas such as Brighton.

Mr. Sims: I was not suggesting that the problem was confined to inner and suburban London; the hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned other areas that are affected, and I appreciate that the same thing happens elsewhere.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Minister made an interesting reference to migration figures being considered. That was news to me and I hope that he will be able to expand on it, either during the debate or later. He knows of my interest. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the way in which he received a deputation from the London boroughs, which I led, and of the sympathetic hearing that he gave that deputation. I hope that he will be able to go some way towards improving the formula to remove the current sense of injustice—if not now, before this time next year.

Mr. Hinchliffe: It would be wrong to give the impression that every inner-London borough has suffered as a result of the funding system. Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate, for instance, on why his


authority, Bromley, receives £91 for each person over the age of 75, while for some reason Wandsworth receives £144.07 per person?

Mr. Sims: No, I would not. I shall merely say that that increases the sense of injustice and suggests that the formula is, to say the least, capable of improvement.
The question that inevitably arises, and will continue to arise, is whether the total grant, however it is distributed, will be enough to enable authorities to implement the policies set out in the community care legislation. The answer is, of course, that we simply do not know: we are entering unknown territory. As the implementation of the Act unfolds, cases will come to light, and will be assessed, with results on which we can only speculate. We do not really know the extent to which needs will be revealed, or what will be involved in trying to meet them.
That leads us to the problem encapsulated in the expression "unmet need". The dilemma, as I see it, is this: under the Act, a local authority will be required to assess each case, to specify the needs that the assessment reveals and then to meet those needs. It may not be able to do so, however. The chronically sick and disabled persons legislation, for instance, imposes an absolute obligation to meet the needs that are revealed.
Ideally, an assessment should be agreed with relatives—and, of course, with the user in particular. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has arrived in the Chamber: she was good enough to commend my local authority's practice of securing the user's agreement to the assessment, along with his or her signature on the document. Nevertheless, the guidance now being given to local authorities is somewhat ambivalent, suggesting that it may not be wise to specify actual needs in an assessment because the authority concerned might then be open to legal challenge.
I hestitate to use of the word "deception", but it seems that assessments could be misleading. My anxiety is increased by the evidence given to the Select Committee by officials from the Department—this relates to what was said by the hon. Member for Wakefield. The officials seemed to suggest that, although the progress of community care would be monitored and some statistics would be collected, statistics relating to unmet need would not be collected. That rather negates the whole principle that community care should be driven by needs rather than resources.
During the passage of the legislation, many of us said, time and again, "This is all very fine, but will the resources be there to meet the needs?" We were assured that the resources would be there, and we have been assured again today that the report is part of that provision; but how can the Department know that the resources are adequate without having information about unmet need?
I understand the difficulty. It is desirable to specify the need, and it is also realistic to accept that it may not always be possible to meet that need. We all know that budgets—even if they are twice the figure that we are discussing—are finite. There could be circumstances in which it would be impossible to meet every need. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider ways to resolve that difficulty? Is it practicable to have a genuine and open assessment of need and the extent to which it can be met? We should be straightforward about the matter and say to

the users, "This is our assessment of your need and this is what, ideally, you should have—A, B, C, D and E—but we can currently offer you only, A, B, C and D. We accept that, in time, we should be able to help you in other ways."
I think that the users and relatives will accept that funds are not unlimited, but we should all know where we stand. The local authority should have it on record and know the exact position. It should know not only the needs that it is meeting, but the needs that it has been unable to meet. Those statistics could then be collected at Richmond house and my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers will be able to see whether community care is working.
Perhaps in a few years' time we shall hear that everything is going smoothly and the resources have proved adequate—I hope so. The resources may be adequate in some sectors, but inadequate in others. There may be room for adjustment or increase, but at least that would be a fairer and more realistic system than the present apparent fudging and uncertainty.
Of course, there are still worries—there are bound to be—about exactly how community care will work, particularly the interface between health authorities and local authorities, notwithstanding any agreements that may have been made. There is a distinction between social care and health care, how each one is defined and where they overlap. Given good will and common sense, I am sure that those difficulties can be overcome.
There are uncertainties—with only a few weeks to go, some are inevitable—but some of them could be clarified. For example, what happens when someone is in a home where the fees are higher than his income support and he receives a top-up, which then ceases? What is the local authority's responsibility? I have a letter from my local assistant care director which refers to that dilemma:
The verbal advice from the Department of Health is that a resident in receipt of Income Support and who therefore has preserved rights after the community care changes, whose top up from whatever source is withdrawn after that time, must seek a cheaper placement. If no such placement is available they may apply to the local authority to supplement their Income Support allowance. The Department of Health is however stating that the resident must move placement in order that local authorities are not just used as an automatic source of funding.
The problem is that people left, right and centre could withdraw their top-up knowing that the local authority will automatically take over. Clearly, we must guard against that, but it seems that there could be cases where the withdrawal of the top-up could be due to unavoidable circumstances such as a relative dying. It would be harsh if someone who had been in a residential or nursing home for many years were then required to move for the reasons that I have described. I do not necessarily expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give a straightforward answer today, but I hope that he will clarify the position, certainly before 1 April.

Ms. Jowell: The issue of the shortfall between income support limits and the actual cost of residential care is, rightly, a source of enormous worry. It is one sector of expenditure where the local authorities and local authority associations feel that the Government have failed to heed the evidence of the scale of the difficulty nationally. Local authorities calculate that the national shortfall is £73 million. That shortfall is currently made up by relatives, charities and a range of top-up sources, but could, after 1 April, become the responsibility of the local authority. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would


be a source of tremendous instability in a new system if such a large amount were not underwritten by the Government from the outset.

Mr. Sims: It would be unreasonable to expect the Government to write a blank cheque for the sort of figure given by the hon. Lady, but it would be helpful to have some clarification about what the position would be given the circumstances that I have outlined. It would be reasonable for the local authority to have some discretion in the matter.

Mr. Ian McCartney: In a debate on a statutory instrument in Committee yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), said that he and his Department were seeking to draft amendments to section 43 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to ensure that some categories of residence received top-up support from local authorities. He said that he could not say yet what those categories would be and that that was a matter for the Department of Health. The Minister could help today's debate, because yesterday it was placed on record that active consideration is being given to the issue by the Department.

Mr. Sims: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me up to date on the latest state of play on that issue and I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister later.
Although I have voiced some reservations and some of the understandable concerns felt by those who will be implementing community care, I welcome the report—although I believe that it has come a little late. I hope that my hon. Friend's Department will watch carefully as the community care policy unfolds. I hope that the Minister will keep himself fully informed and, where action seems appropriate, will take it without delay.

Mr. Nigel Jones: Liberal Democrats welcome many of the Government's ideas on community care, many of which are progressive. In the main, the philosophy that underlies their ideas is correct. Unfortunately, the report will not lead to enough money being provided properly to implement the Government's philosophy. I say that because social services departments of local authorities throughout the country are struggling to put together next year's budgets with inadequate finance. I declare an interest as an elected county councillor in Gloucestershire who serves on the social services committee of that authority.
More than 80 per cent. of directors of social services in England predict that their budgets will be reduced in April, which is the time when they are due to take on important new responsibilities for community care. According to a survey conducted by the Association of Directors of Social Services, 81.7 per cent. of local authorities which responded to the questionnaire seemed set to cut spending on social services when their budgets are finalised in April. A further 8.5 per cent. expect a standstill budget.
The consequences for the users of social services will be immense. For example, they may be subject to additional charges for services such as home helps and meals on wheels. Crucial inspection staff who are required to monitor standards in residential homes will not be appointed. Residential homes and day centres for elderly

and mentally handicapped people could be closed. Additional staff required to implement the community care reforms and to respond to rising levels of social need will not be brought on to the social services payroll.
According to the president of the ADSS, Peter Smallridge, the news for social services coming from the results of the survey carried out by the association is extremely gloomy. Members of the association warned last year of the danger that, despite ring-fenced money being made available for community care this April, the impact of Government policies towards local government expenditure as a whole would drive many councils—country as well as urban—to make cuts in other crucial areas of the social services budget. That seems to be what is taking place.
The great flaw in the report is that part of the calculation uses our old friend standard spending assessment. I shall not rehearse all the arguments about SSA because they were advanced in the debate last week. Even the Government seem to admit now, however, that SSA is not right. I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to review the system, which seems to imply that even he thinks that it is not perfect. The Government say that SSA is not a statement of need but merely a method of distributing a predetermined amount of money.
Gloucestershire county council, on which I serve, has carried out a detailed survey of existing residents in care who receive benefit. The director of social services, Deryk Mead, to whom I spoke yesterday and this morning, tells me that the survey shows that there is a shortfall of £1.4 million. I listened carefully to the Minister when he talked about rising standards. I would like to see rising standards, of course, but the financial arrangements seem to mean that local authorities will be obliged to try to force down fees. Many people believe that that will reduce standards and could lead to the financial collapse of some private care homes.
The proposed settlement does not reflect what has been happening in recent years. It seems that it allows for no increase in numbers. Nor does it allow for an increase in fees. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will tell the House how many people the Government estimate will enter care this year, bearing in mind the rapid increase in numbers over the past 10 years.
If local authorities have to find additional moneys for fees, there will be no funds to improve day care, respite care or home help. We have heard the views of the ADSS and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about underfunding. I heard the Minister say that, if councils want to spend more on community care, they can draw on their own funds. Many local authorities, including Gloucestershire county council, wish to spend more on that form of care. That is why last night Gloucestershire's county councillors unanimously approved a budget—it was proposed by Conservative councillors—to exceed the capping limit by £10.3 million.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the figures that are set out in the report. I ask him and his right hon. Friends to ensure that when local authority representatives speak to the Ministers who are responsible for their expenditure after they have exceeded their capping limit, Ministers will respond to the needs of the local community and to the councillors who have listened to the people whom they represent. I ask them to allow local authorities to spend what is needed to provide proper and decent high-level services in those areas.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: This is a rather exciting day. I strongly approve of the policy that has been presented to us. As it is set out—in theory—it is excellent. Everything will depend, of course, on how it works out in practice. We all know that. If those who are in need of help from social services are assessed on the basis of their needs and the needs of their carers, we are taking a huge step forward.
It took a long time to complete the sterile debates in which we engaged during the health service reforms. We spent much time arguing about whether resources were adequate. I declare now that resources will never be adequate. There is no possibility of meeting all the needs that it would be so easy to define.
I spent an extraordinarily uncomfortable but profitable morning today as a participant in the Kilroy programme. I feel like a new form of graffiti—"Kilroy, I was there." He had brought together a remarkable collection of people who were carers and some of those for whom they were caring. As I was the only representative of the governing party, it was predictable that any pretensions that I may have had in the past to be a supporter of carers in a wide variety of different ways vanished like snow off a dyke. I was instantly and continuously pilloried throughout the programme.
Nevertheless, the extraordinary courage, devotion and strength of purpose that carers of all ages and stages of life display in looking after others is remarkably clear. I feel that it is not within the scope of any Government to create at public expense the sort of total support system that is delivered for about 85 per cent. of people in receipt of care by individual carers. I feel, however, that they are entitled, and will increasingly expect and demand, the relatively minor support that makes it possible for them to continue. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say how much he valued the provision of respite care, to take but one example.
A recent report—it was the basis of the Kilroy programme this morning—makes it clear that the preference of many carers is that support should be based on their own homes. They feel that the people for whom they are caring should not be sent away. I am sure that there are occasions, however, when the client, as it were, wants to be sent away. I have examples in my extended family where people have been going for several years on what they regard as a holiday. That works well, but we need to take tremendous note of the fact that carers look for respite within their own homes. I hope that the imaginative provision of the new community care legislation which states that the needs of the carer must be taken into account will prove to be a spur to imaginative and creative provision.
I have a huge regard for the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). For a brief time only, before he was translated to higher things, he was chairman of the parliamentary panel for the personal social services, and his concern and devotion to the provision of social services is well known. However, I did not altogether recognise the scene that he painted, and in one respect in particular.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the Government intend to provide financial stability for those who are already in care and that gradually, as local authorities make new care plans, the automatic, or

virtually automatic, sending of large numbers of people into residential care will stop, as it has already begun to cease in Kent.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I expected something to follow on from them. Let me clarify my concern and that of the Labour party on the issue that he is addressing. The 85 per cent. requirement in respect of the independent sector will, because of the lack of independent alternatives to residential and nursing care, lead to people going into care, not on the basis of their assessed needs but because of the requirement to spend that money. If there are no domiciliary alternatives and their development is prevented, there is no choice but to continue placing people in care, often away from where they live.

Mr. Rowe: That is what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, but it is nonsense. There is no reason why social services departments, through contracts with the independent sector, should not summon into being alternative provision. That is what is happening in my local authority.
My local authority is not typical because it has spent the past two years developing care and it is fair to say that it has been thinking about the development of community care for much longer than that. Much of the pre-thinking that went into the legislation was based on what was happening in Kent. One consequence is that it is busily engaged in inventing contracts of a sort which will summon into being different ways of delivering different kinds of care.
I take one example. I think that I am right in saying that Kent no longer has any long-term residential homes. They are now linked service centres which are used as a basis for a wide variety of provision including day and respite care. People go there for the management of their domicilliary services, and so on. Such a wide and imaginative variety of resources will grow, and so they should. That is the way forward.
It is true that at the moment Kent has some 835 homes providing 17,000 places with a budget of £268 million and employing 20,000 people. Many of them are shaking in their shoes because they see that the emergence of community care will put a number of them at risk, and so it should. But instead of sitting back and going out of business because they cannot think what to do, the more imaginative home owners are already beginning to create other ways of delivering services.
For example, homes are becoming resource centres for carers and people use them on a daily basis for the provision of specialist teams to work in the community, whether to carry out simple carpentry tasks, which is often one of the things that people living on their own need—

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was referring to the fact that, while there is nothing to stop the private sector developing domiciliary care—some have already developed what were loss leaders which have had to be closed because of the impact of the recession on residential care homes—many local authorities are having to cut their home care services to meet the Government's spending limits while having to maintain existing patterns of spend on the independent residential care sector for the next year.
Therefore, although there is no reason in theory why the private domiciliary sector should not grow and


flourish, the Government have created specific obstacles to its development in the short term, while forcing many local authorities to cut their existing home care services. Domiciliary care is severely at risk, certainly in the short term.

Mr. Rowe: I understand that local authorities vary greatly in the way in which they run their affairs and in the demographic and other distributions with which they have to cope. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said at the beginning, the amount of money in real terms being spent on social services has rocketed in recent years. In some cases, the turnover—that is hardly the right word—in residential homes is rapid. People may die fairly swiftly or have to move into nursing homes or into other forms of disposition. When that happens, it will be the end of that perverse incentive which Griffiths was so anxious to remove and we shall see a new generation of forms of care and support. Certainly that is what I hope to see.
An area that I believe to be of central significance to the satisfactory delivery of community care is the liaison between the health service and the social services. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made an important contribution on that point which I wish to underline.
In that provision there are two elements, the first of which is general practice. It is fundamental that general practitioners should collaborate in every possible way with the social services. In Kent, the chances of that happening have been enormously improved by the development of a sophisticated computer package developed by the social services so that every care manager in Kent should have access to the database for his clients. What is more, a simplified version is being made available to every general practitioner in Kent so that they can summon up, using a carefully guarded confidential password, that part of the assessment and database which refers to their patients and to which they should have access.
Nothing ever works on machinery alone, but there is no doubt that equipment is enormously helpful. If that newly pioneered programme works as it is intended to work, it should enormously improve the liaison between the general practitioner and the social services manager. One of the most encouraging features of the NHS reforms has been the astonishing increase in the number of staff being deployed from doctors' surgeries. I do not have the figures for later than 1990, but they have gone up from 37,000 in 1980 to 78,000 in 1990. Many of those—

Mr. McCartney: Consultants and tax consultants.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, shouts, "Consultants and tax consultants." If he cares to look at the figures for nurses, for therapists and even, in a growing number of general practice surgeries, social workers, he will see that the general practice surgery is becoming a central point for the delivery of care based in the community.
I want not rivalry between services and GPs but collaboration on that basis. May I say to the Minister, in passing and in public, what I have said to him before in private: that when we can get away from the constriction of a one-year contract on which it is extraordinarily difficult to plan, we should develop free-standing consortia of therapists, whether they be physiotherapists, occupational or speech therapists. Such consortia would be able to deliver services to the four purchasers which have now

come into the market: schools, fund-holding practices, the health service and the social services. If they do not create a strong free-standing organisation of their own, therapists are liable to find themselves at the bottom of everybody's expenditure queue. For a whole range of people in the community, it is very often the services of therapists which are the most cost-effective way of helping them.
The document makes no reference to volunteers, of course, but I believe passionately that we underestimate and under-use volunteers and the potential for them. It has to be remembered that one of the biggest single demographic changes in the country will result, in the next 10 years, in literally millions of people retiring from their principal occupations with 30 or more years of active life ahead of them. Someone who retires from his principal occupation between the ages of 55 and 60 will be active for another 30 years. What is he going to do? Unless those people are enabled and encouraged, in large numbers, to do things for other people, they will themselves become clients of the social services because they will be bored and will find themselves falling heir to a variety of different ills.
The Prime Minister says that we need to release the tremendous resources in our people; this is one area in which we need a serious, well-designed and effective way of organising volunteers. Volunteers are one of the best ways of monitoring the quality of services. Volunteers going in and out of homes, going in and out of individuals' homes, reading to people and doing their shopping, are as good a check on the way in which the statutory services are delivering community care as any other mechanism of which we can think. It is important that we should do that.
I say to the Minister that community care will inevitably require some residential care. That residential care, which has so often been the scene of hideous scandals and which the Warner report has identified as extraordinarily under-trained, requires a substantial improvement in training, recruitment, monitoring and promotion of residential staff. There has to be a much greater interchange between residential and nonresidential staff. There have to be ways for staff to be encouraged to move from one residential post to another so they do not get stale and dug into various Chinese or other practices.
In that fight, the national vocational qualification is a huge card to play. I am extremely pleased at the way in which forward-looking social services departments, like that of Kent, are making use of the national vocational qualification as a way of authenticating or accrediting the skills that many middle-aged people bring, perhaps from the experience of caring for their own people, to residential care. I hope that the Minister will give every possible boost to the expansion of that programme.

Ms. Tessa Jowell: I join other hon. Members who have talked about the popularity of a policy of community care. It makes sense—and by and large it is what people want as they grow older or experience disability—to live at home and for those friends and relatives who provide most of our community care to be properly supported in the job that they do in caring for them. However, users of community care services and their carers also emphasise other aspects of community care beyond just social care and health services.
They stress the importance of being properly housed. Too often, community care is seen only in terms of what the social services department or voluntary social care organisations can provide. The fact that a person has a home is taken for granted, yet housing is an integral part of proper community care. So, too, is an adequate income. Given that so many disabled people rely on social security benefits as their major source of income, proper information about their entitlement to benefits and maximising the take-up of benefits to which they are entitled is critical. So, too, is the issue of transport and mobility. Being able to get around and to make choices about what one does each day depends on being physically able to leave home. That is what community care means, as described by disabled people and their carers.
In considering community care policy and its funding, it is also worth considering what makes good community care for disabled people and their carers. Often, it is not the volume of service, or who provides it. What matters is that the service is delivered with certainty, is flexible and takes account of the vast array of changing and different needs, that it is reliable and that people come when they say they will come.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Lady is making a very powerful point, with which I wholly agree. Will she recall that there is at present before the House the Disabled Persons (Services) Bill, the purpose of which is to enable those who are particularly severely disabled but who wish to hire and fire some of their own staff to be able to have the cash to do that, rather than to have to get staff through some third party such as a local authority?

Ms. Jowell: Certainly disabled people and the organisations representing them will welcome the opportunity to have the cash to buy the care and support that they need. When I visited the centre for independent living in Boston some years ago, I was struck by the different approach to disability. That centre ran what was, essentially, a consultancy on the employment and management of teams of staff who supported disabled people, who then determined how the staff could be deployed so that they could go about their daily business in the way that they chose. That really represents freedom and freedom of choice for disabled people. The principles addressed by the hon. Gentleman are absolutely right and will be welcomed by disabled people.
This is also, perhaps, the moment at which to emphasise the great distress and anger among disabled people at the Government's decision to wind up the independent living fund, and their failure so far to provide any adequate explanation of how the alternative arrangements will be made. The independent living fund was probably the most popular benefit available to disabled people, precisely because it offered, on the basis of assessment, a degree of choice as to the nature of the care that people received and the support that they purchased for themselves, so that they could make their own choices about how they lived in their community.
It is very much to the Government's shame that they have chosen to wind up the fund in the context of the introduction of legislation which is about choice for disabled people, and it flies in the face of the choices which disabled people would themselves make. If disabled people

were asked whether they wanted retention of the independent living fund or replacement along the lines that the Government propose, I guarantee that they would give the fund an overwhelming vote of confidence.
Returning briefly to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, of course we want to see an end to the loophole whereby well-intentioned local authorities have cash available to disabled people but have had to use a voluntary organisation or a third party as a conduit.
The essential tests against which we should be judging the provisions before the House today are that services are reliable—that the promised bus actually arrives—and that people have the opportunity to use services of high quality which they do not feel demean them as users. It is to our eternal shame as a country that so many disabled people and elderly people are being cared for in residential and other settings which none of us would choose for our families and which none of us who manage the services would choose. They are services for people who are unable to exercise any choice. If the implementation of this policy achieves the eradication of any stigma associated with using community care services, it will be a great tribute to those throughout the country who have worked to make the policy succeed. That is the important test.
It is extraordinarily difficult to achieve the complex objectives of the policy in practice. Described simply as the desirability of looking after elderly people in their own homes, providing support to carers, and responding to need rather than just delivering services, it all sounds incredibly straightforward. However, the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and other hon. Members have sat with me on the Select Committee during recent deliberations, and we have heard from local authority associations, regional health authorities and the social services inspectorate about the complexity of turning local authorities inside out and getting them to change course from being providers of services to developing the capacity to respond to people's needs.
I well remember a recent conversation with an elderly lady who was being assessed for community care services and whose needs were therefore being judged. She said, "I know that I am coping if my windows are clean." It is being able to meet sensitively that kind of very personal test of competence which is so terribly important to so many elderly people. The capacity to do that is one proof of how far local authorities can shift from being Henry Ford-like providers of services—on any terms so long as it is meals on wheels or a bit of residential care—to addressing the complex task of meeting the multiplicity of individual needs, which may include a preference for having clean windows.
Behind the general consensus on the desirability of community care, there are enormous tensions and the fault lines are beginning to open. It is around the opening of these fault lines that the consensus which saw this policy, which is now being implemented, through the last Session of Parliament is breaking down. It is very hard to reconcile the Government's protestations about the importance of choice and their determination to meet people's needs rather than simply deliver services with the increasing debate about the adequacy of the money being made available, and the glaring discrepancies which have been revealed between the estimates of the local authority associations representing both political persuasions and the calculations made by the Government.
We must ensure not necessarily that agreement is reached at this stage on the precise figures, but that the Government's mind and, perhaps more importantly, their cheque book remains open, so that they can come to the rescue not just of local authorities, but of those elderly people who may be caught towards the end of this financial year with a local authority which cannot buy any more residential care for them, regardless of their need. We want an assurance from the Minister today that the Government's mind is open and that they will accept the evidence of underfunding as the first, very tricky year of implementation proceeds.
The second area of great concern, to which I have already referred briefly, is that of the loss of the independent living fund. Again, we look forward to hearing from the Minister just how the promise of choice is reconciled with the decision to withdraw a fund which for so many disabled people has represented what might be the only, rather limited, opportunity to exercise choice.
We must also address the real risk that an imperfect and inadequate system, led by social security, within which people's entitlement was clear, is being replaced by a system which relies very heavily on discretion and in relation to which individual service users and carers will have no redress and no right of appeal. I am terribly concerned that elderly and disabled people throughout the country may become prey to the discretionary judgments of social workers rather than having an explicit statement of their entitlement.
We also have to take account of the other pressures that local authorities are facing and which will impact on their ability to deliver properly what this policy promises. The Association of Directors of Social Services has provided compelling evidence of the cuts in social services which are likely to be implemented as a result of the requirement to meet Government spending targets over the next year. We know that the consequences of cuts in those services will be a betrayal of the promise to carers of improved and increased care and support. Ultimately, the one source of support that is always there is the carer—the friend or relative who provides most of the care and support for a disabled person.
On the basis of what we have heard and seen, local authorities are taking on the new lead responsibility for community care with great enthusiasm. In so doing, we and they want to ensure that they are not being set up to fail. There are grave risks of fragmentation in their critical lead role. As Sir Roy Griffiths rightly said in his report some years ago, it is through that lead role that the fragmentation which has so bedevilled the proper and seamless development of community care in the past will end.
Fragmentation remains a danger in two ways. The first is the lack of definition between social and health care to which other hon. Members have referred. It is still possible that an elderly person can leave hospital and, on the grounds of his continuing need for nursing care, be referred directly to a nursing home with which the health authority has a contract. That person will receive the nursing care free of charge. However, another elderly person who is placed in the same nursing home through the local authority assessment route may be required to top up or make a personal contribution to the cost of his care because his social rather than nursing needs were deemed to be paramount. Studies which have tried to establish the distinction between nursing care need and

social care need have proved what a difficult boundary that is, but it is terribly important that it does not become a source of fragmentation and inequity in the new system.
The second risk is that general practitioners will not be sufficiently co-operative with the lead role of local authorities and, especially, that after 1 April this year GP fund holders may use their enhanced ability to purchase community health services on behalf of their patients so as to circumvent the local authority assessment procedure. Even before 1 April, we must anticipate some of the problems which may arise and which could defeat the policy. We must be assured of the Government's open-mindedness and their willingness to take action to avoid fragmentation.
As I represent the constituency of Dulwich in London, I wish to deal specifically with some of the problems facing London. A major problem was identified in the mid-year population estimates published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. It showed a substantial loss of population in London, especially among elderly people aged 85 and over. My borough of Southwark shows a staggering loss of 32 per cent. in its population of those elderly people. Clearly, that has severe knock-on consequences for the grant that Southwark will receive.
At a recent meeting which I, the hon. Member for Chislehurst and the London local authority associations attended, the Minister accepted that such a loss of population could not be accounted for merely by the fact that elderly people from London boroughs who need residential care have to be referred to private homes on the Essex or south coast. He said that we had to look for other reasons. We are grateful to the Minister for the undertakings that he made in that respect.
I hope that the Minister will also keep an open mind about the inequity of the distribution formula and its impact on London authorities. My own authority of Southwark stands to lose about £800,000 as a result of that formula.
Those problems must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. If not, the old lady from Dulwich to whom ray hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred will not have the choice of living in her own home in my constituency but will surely be shipped off to the Essex coast or the south coast, perhaps against her will. She will have to go because she has no choice and it is the only place where the residential care is provided. We want the Government to deal with those problems with an open mind as the policy unfolds, so that the good principles behind the policy will be safeguarded in practice.

Mr. David Congdon: This has been an interesting debate on an important subject. Most hon. Members are fully committed to care in the community and what it involves, although, as the date of implementation comes closer, some concerns are inevitably raised.
However, community care is nothing new. It has been practised by many social services departments for many years. I do not believe that there will be a dramatic change on 1 April except in the critical aspect of the assessment process to which the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) referred.
I agree with the hon. Lady about care in the community and the sensitivity with which services should be delivered.


In some ways, residential care is very easy to provide: it is usually provided in one building and, regrettably, people can be put into residential homes and forgotten because one knows that, broadly speaking, they will be cared for reasonably well.
However, under care in the community there is a much greater risk of services not being delivered sensitively and, certainly, not always being delivered at the right time, especially when a large number of agencies are involved. It will be a challenge for all the agencies to ensure that they deliver care in the way that it needs to be delivered to the people who need it, when they need it.
Reference has been made to the residents of Dulwich, a constituency that I have the privilege of knowing very well. As some hon. Members will know, in a former incarnation I was chairman of the Young Conservatives in Dulwich. I suspect that, far from being shipped off to the south coast, many elderly residents of Dulwich come to the many excellent independent homes in the borough of Croydon. Croydon has many such homes, which is why it is the only London borough that appears to benefit from the distribution of grant that we are debating.
I deal now with the independent sector in general. I thought that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was rather unfair when he referred to the growth in the private sector as a free market experiment. We should not forget that many elderly people up and down the country have received excellent care as a result of the growth in the independent sector. We are very well aware of the fact that many of those people could have benefited from care in the community. Equally, however, there is a strong case for the independent sector.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Hon. Members who are present have heard me describe cases involving constituents who have ended up in private institutional care many miles from my constituency, at a cost to the state twice as high as would have been the cost of supplying the services needed to enable those people to remain at home. That is my objection to what the Government have done to encourage the explosive expansion of private sector care.

Mr. Congdon: I understand and appreciate that objection. The important point that I am making is that people with money can afford to buy residential care, wherever they want it, without any assessment, whereas people without money cannot afford to do so. The provision of income support has enabled the latter to secure residential care. However, there is a downside. If community care had been properly provided by the social services departments to which the hon. Member for Wakefield referred, people could have benefited from it. I readily concede that point. In fact, many social services departments have properly expanded their services to meet that very demand.
Equally, however, many local authorities have used their planning powers responsibly and sensibly to ensure that obstacles are not placed in the path of those wishing to set up independent homes. I make that point as someone from a borough which has an enormous number of independent homes and which came in for much criticism for giving planning permission for them. But the

result is that many residents of my borough have been able to secure the required residential provision within their localities.
I take issue with the remark of the hon. Member for Wakefield that community care has become a byword for neglect. I certainly concede that in some areas there has been a shortfall in the provision of services for the mentally ill. In general, however, it is something of a disservice to those involved in community care to use such terms.
In this context, we must bear in mind the enormous growth in funding for health and personal social services. I was intrigued by the comment of the hon. Member for Wakefield about funds going back to the Exchequer. If funds have gone back to the Exchequer, I do not know where they have ended up. Over the past 13 years, there has been a growth of 60 per cent., in real terms, in NHS expenditure and an increase of two thirds in real terms in social services expenditure. I do not think that there has been a bonanza in this respect.
I understand the concern about the ability of social services departments to cope, given the amounts of money being allocated to them. Reference has been made to the fact that many social services departments are saying that, following the rate support grant settlement, they will have to cut their budgets in the forthcoming year. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). I regard that argument as a little odd. Everyone says that community care is very important. Certainly, those involved in local government say so. However, when it comes to the crunch, some authorities do not seem to be prepared to put their money where their mouths are. They should look at all their services and decide their priorities.
I am pleased to say that the council of which I was a member for 16 years was able continually to put growth money into social services. In the year beginning 1 April 1993, excluding the money for care in the community, there will be an extra £500,000 for the social services budget. If local authorities regard community care as a priority, they should do likewise in respect of their social services budget and should look to other services with a view to cutting out waste. Thus they could protect a valuable personal social service.
There are two issues before us: the scale of the funds being made available by the Government and their distribution. It is always possible to argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) did, that there will never be sufficient funds to meet all needs. However, we have a responsibility continually to put extra resources into health and social services. That has indeed been done.
I had a particular interest in the discussion in the Select Committee on Health on the question of the appropriate level of funds to be allocated to social services. In broad terms, I was satisfied that the level and the basis of the calculation were reasonable. One can always argue for more, but one is dealing with a projection of the number of people who, under the previous rules, would present themselves as being in need of, and would secure, care in residential homes, and of what will happen after 1 April. That is an important point.
Also important is the fact that the Department of Health and its Ministers must review at the strategic level the numbers being provided for in the coming year, to determine whether the amount of money transferred is at the right level for future years. It seems to me that that


must be done. No one can guarantee that the right amount of money is being transferred. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
An equally important issue is that of distribution. It is not surprising that a fair number of local authorities are protesting about the amount of money that they are receiving. In fact, I should have been very surprised if they had not done so. I should probably have wondered whether the Government. in their allocations, had been too generous.
It is difficult to make a fair allocation. I fully understand the arguments about basing allocation on standard spending assessments. I equally understand the argument about the need to avoid decimating the existing independent sector and pattern of provision. It is not for any ideological reason, for the purpose of protecting the private sector, that I say so; it is because many of those homes are providing good care.
At a time of great change—and there will indeed be great change over the next few years—it is important to avoid being too disruptive on day one. We do not know in detail how what is being introduced will work in practice. That is why I am very much in favour of an evolutionary approach. I might draw a comparison with the NHS reforms, in which case, although the purchasers enter into contracts with providers, the contracts, in general, have been in a steady state in year one.
That approach is rightly being adopted, in broad terms, in the case of care in the community. I say so with some caution, as we all wish to see resources switched, over a period, from residential care to community care. I realise how difficult it is to achieve that. Even when one sets out with such an aim, one has to be very careful to ensure that, over a period, resources are switched.
On allocations, there is concern that some London boroughs are losing—many would argue that that is the case. However, it is important to bear in mind the fact that the split between SSAs and income support is being treated in such a way as to ensure that an increasing proportion of the money allocated will be based on SSAs. That is an important point.
If we take the other money in the revenue support grant, these proposals should be seen in the context of representing an increase of 15 per cent. in SSAs for social services for local authorities. That is a significant increase. I hope that that will give local authorities the opportunity to get to grips with the job and successfully implement community care.
It is ironic that for many years local authorities have criticised the Government for taking responsibilities from them. Much play has been made of that. Local authorities put in a very strong bid to be given responsibility for care in the community. Many did not think that the Government would have the courage to give them that responsibility. The Government have had the courage to do so, and it is now up to the local authorities to get on with the job and do the best they can to implement the community care proposals sensibly and sensitively. Over the next year they should have a lively dialogue with Government about reviewing the amounts of money if they believe they have not got the necessary funding to implement their policies. At least they should get on with implementing the proposals for the benefit of the people in their communities.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate because it concerns one of the most important issues facing the country. The timing is good, because it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon). It means that at least the north of Croydon has been well represented in the debate. I thank you for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My colleague talked about Croydon. I too should like to start my speech by talking about Croydon, but rather differently. In my judgment, formed from talking to many people in Croydon, the dawn of the new community care age is opening darkly. The social services authority, Croydon council, is already making cuts in preparation for the new regime.
Yesterday I visited Bensham lodge, an old people's home in my constituency, which is facing the axe. Another home in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is also facing the axe. Why? I remember experts telling us that old people's homes were not institutions but the homes of the old people; we were told that they were places where the old people lived and that the residents should be treated like other people who were living in their own homes.
What did Croydon council do? The council marched in one day and said to the residents, many of whom are frail, "The home will be closed. Here is the timetable." Many people were distressed. To that they were tearful is an understatement. The carers and relatives were concerned. They telephoned and asked me to go to the home to find out what was happening.
I visited the home yesterday and I was appalled. I tried not to raise the issue of closure with the old people because I knew how upset they were. I wanted to find out about the atmosphere, but the old folk themselves said to me, "Look at what is going on. The home is going to close, is it not? Why do we have to go?" It is a splendid home in very good grounds in the heart of Croydon and it is much loved by the residents and their relatives.
Now the council has had to think again briefly because properly a court elsewhere has said recently that councils cannot treat people in that way. The court decided that the councils could not close homes without consultation. Croydon council is now going through a consultation process. Cynically, people on the committee are saying that it is a process which they have to go through because the court has said so. As I understand it, it is not a proper process of consultation whereby old people will be listened to.
If there was proper consultation, there might be a change of heart and the home might be safeguarded. Instead, I fear that the residents will be shunted out to the private sector, not the independent sector. The provision of accommodation will be put out to tender and people who have lived in the same home as friends for many years will be split up. I take this public opportunity to urge the director of social services in Croydon and the chairman of the social services committee to visit the home, as I did, not to talk but to listen to what the old people in Bensham lodge have to say.
The fact that Crossfields, an excellent sheltered workshop in Croydon, for people with disabilities also faces the axe is another cause for concern. That workshop showed how employment can be a key factor in


community care. The people were doing good work making windows and other things. Because of the recession, and because Croydon council wishes to withdraw a grant, the workshop faces closure. The people may be offered a day centre, but they do not want that. They want to work, like the rest of us: it gives some meaning to their lives. Work is an important aspect of community care for those with learning difficulties or severe mental handicap.
Because of the proposed closure of the old people's home and the sheltered workshop, I am not as confident as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East about the prospects for community care in our borough.
The trends are clear, and I think we all agree on them. We see a reduction in public sector residential provision for old people. That is happening in the national health service and the public sector too. By contrast, there is a huge increase in the private sector. When he kindly let me intervene in his speech earlier, the Minister quarrelled with me and said that the independent sector was not the private sector but included the voluntary sector as well. I conceded that in my intervention, but I said that it was essentially the private sector.
Since the Minister finished his speech, I have looked at the figures to see what has happened to residential places in the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector between 1980 and 1990. I quote the data from Laing and Buisson, consultants of whom the Minister will know. That shows that, between 1980 and 1990, the local authority residential sector has declined by 3 per cent.; the voluntary sector has declined, not increased, by 7 per cent.; only the private sector has increased, by 416 per cent., if my calculator has not let me down; the private nursing home sector has increased by 457 per cent. Therefore, the growth in the so-called independent sector has been in the private, commercial sector, so let us have no nonsense on that score.
I do not know about the domiciliary sector in Croydon, but if the Minister thinks that there is a huge difference which makes his statement valid, no doubt he will remind me of that in his reply to the debate. I am talking about the private commercial sector, some of it good, some of it excellent, some of it shabby and awful where none of us would want to live or want our elders to live.
I focus briefly on an issue not referred to much on the Government Benches—the carers. The distortion of the community care policy into a residential care policy is extraordinary. The whole philosophy of community care was, strangely enough, about community care and not residential care. Because of the expenditure fix and the ideological concern of Government, regardless of need, to boost the private commercial, for-profit sector, we are now talking about residential care.
Sadly, when we should be talking about community care and the needs of carers, we are discussing the finances of residential care. We are doing it narrowly. We are not talking about employment, housing and the other dimensions of community care. What should have been a wide debate has become remarkably narrow. I think I know why the Government do not talk about carers any more. Of course, in speeches, they pat them on the back and say how wonderful and important they are, but we do

not hear so much now about a brave new era after 1 April for the carer and those being cared for genuinely in the community. I wonder why.
I am struck by the evidence from the new Office of Population Censuses and Surveys general household survey. In 1990, it updated a survey of carers first done in 1985. The data were published a few months ago. The information has not received the attention is deserved. It showed that 15 per cent. of the people are carers, looking after elderly relatives or people with handicaps or disabilities; 13 per cent. of men and 17 per cent. of women are carers. That adds up to a huge army of carers, 6.8 million—an army of health and social service carers far greater than we find in social services departments of the formal national health service. It is the most important army, but the forgotten army of the welfare state. Some are under enormous burdens; one in 10 provide care for 50 hours or more a week. Without that enormous exertion of care, community care would totally collapse.
A problem with the House is that we are unrepresentative. Given the numbers of carers in the community, we would, if we were truly representative, number among us about 90 carers. I am sure that there are some who are doing excellent work, but if 90 Members were carers our debates would contain a greater sense of experience, expertise and passion. That would certainly be so if we were more representative in terms of gender and therefore in terms of care.
Imagine the difference if 90 Members were carers. The President of the Board of Trade, if a carer, would have to phone the Prime Minister and say, "I regret that I cannot close down the coal mines today because an elderly relative needs my care. I must take her to hospital. The home help has not turned up, so I cannot come to work today. Please look after the mines until I return." The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might have to phone to say that he could not attend an official lunch or dinner. Or the Secretary of State for Transport would have to phone the office to say, " I regret that I cannot come in this week because there is a crisis of care in my family. I fear that I cannot play with my railway trains this week."
If a representative number of hon. Members were carers, the whole debate would be changed. I am not being frivolous. I give those examples to show how serious I am. If we had a better understanding of what is going on, we would have genuine community care in Britain, especially if more men and politicians were involved in caring.
The general household survey review of carers for 1990 makes interesting reading, especially when the figures are compared with the situation in 1985. For example, during those five years, there was a greater recognition by Ministers of the needs of carers. That recognition manifested itself in speeches and rhetoric, although it did not appear in reality and resources.
Carers were asked, in effect, "How often does the person for whom you are caring receive regular visits from the health and social services—the doctor, district nurse, home help, social worker and so on?" In 1985, 22 per cent. of those being cared for by carers had a regular visit from the doctor. By 1990, the number had declined to 16 per cent. For district nurses, the position was steady—only 15 per cent. received regular visits from a district nurse in both 1985 and 1990. For health visitors, there was a slight decline, from 6 to 4 per cent.
Ministers may say that community care, domiciliary care and support for carers is moving in the right direction,


but they should accept that, while my hon. Friends and I say that that is nonsense and Conservative Members say it is true, the facts do not support their claim. I appreciate that in this place some people do not like the facts to get in the way of a good argument, but in this matter the facts speak more loudly than our speeches, and the facts show that we were providing less care for carers at the end of the 1980s than we were five years previously. In other words, all the talk about supporting carers is only talk. It is not happening in reality because we are providing less care.
If the Minister has evidence to prove that what I say is wrong, I shall be delighted to listen to him. I fear that I am right. Indeed, my fear about our neglect for the carer goes further. Because we are now emphasising residential care, hard-pressed social service authorities will have to use the domiciliary care that is available to them for those in the most acute need. Those authorities will say, "If you have a carer, you are not in acute need, so we will not provide more support for you and your carer." That will result in even more neglect of the carer.
When I spoke on the subject of community care shortly after coming to this place, I noted how often, in the sphere of child care or community care, a case of abuse or a tragedy had to occur to arouse public and parliamentary concern and, thank goodness, sometimes governmental concern. I asked then whether we had to continue along that road for ever, with a tragedy having to happen before action was taken.
Some months later, we began to take mental illness seriously, but only after an unfortunate citizen with schizophrenia jumped into a lion's den. What a sad commentary on society that was. It was also a sad commentary on the Government, because only after that incident did they start to bustle. I can imagine the meetings that took place behind closed doors as Ministers thought about the statements they would make. Ministers should walk around Westminster, go into the underground station or stroll up Victoria street and see what is happening. Why did somebody have to jump into a lion's den before action was taken?
There is already documentary evidence—there have been some excellent television programmes on the subject—to show that there is a danger that, out of frustration, after caring day after day, year after year, carers may sometimes hit out at those for whom they are caring. We must understand that situation. I appeal to the Government not to wait for tragedies and cases of abuse to occur in the sphere of true community care affecting the overstressed carer before a Minister appears before us and says, "I did not know it was happening. It is remarkable. I am setting up a committee of inquiry and we intend to take action."
I hope that, when replying to the debate, the Minister will talk about community care and not just about residential care. I urge him to spell out not just his ambitions for the carer but the reality of what is being provided. If he thinks that the evidence I have given about a lack of support for carers is wrong, I hope that he will say enough to prove me wrong. Let us hear about community care in this debate. After all, it is meant to be on the subject of community care.

Mr. Ian McCartney: This has been an excellent debate, with considered and constructive contributions from hon. Members in all parts of the House. It has reflected, particularly for hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), a long-term commitment to community care. I congratulate him on taking the opportunity to plunge a dagger between the Under-Secretary's shoulderblades in relation to the Minister's advocacy and assessment procedures.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks have also saved me having to make about half the speech that I had intended to make, because much of what he said represents Labour party policy. I invite him to sit on these Benches when we next debate the subject: that particularly applies to his remarks about advocacy and assessment.
The Minister introduced the debate in a rather blasé fashion. He appeared self-congratulatory as he set out his view of community care. He set himself up as a sort of Father Christmas, when in reality he is a bit of a Shylock. It is clear from the way in which the funding regimes have been constructed that a pound of flesh has been removed from virtually every social services sector. A dagger has been plunged into the heart of the concept of community care and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wickes) said, we are left with institutional and residential care as the way in which the Government are driving forward the concept of the market provision of care in the community.
The Minister also abdicated responsibility for the mental health services. Indeed, he neglected to refer to the subject, apart from a brief comment in answer to an intervention. He failed to identify any ring-fencing mechanism for resources for mental health services. He rejected the idea of the provision of financial regimes to achieve flexibility in providing employment projects, advocacy and assessment, permanent housing, non-clinical crisis houses and resources for residential care in appropriate settings, along with respite and crisis care for those with mental illnesses or learning disabilities.
It is tragic that, in a debate such as this, the Government should have abdicated responsibility in many other spheres. For example, they look to the Department of the Environment to set financial criteria, with the result that, from 1 April, about 80 per cent. of social services departments will cut their core services, even though those services are vital to assessing the level of facilities in the community, the standard of those facilities, and access to them by those with a mental illness or mental disability.
The Minister behaved disgracefully as he skated over the need to accept responsibility for the preparation of care strategies for offering choice and quality to clients and carers. He offered no protection for failed contractual arrangements, for protection for clients' rights and for standards of care in bankruptcy situations. He knows that such situations will arise because, in the privacy of discussions in the Department with various organisations, he has admitted to expecting a failure rate of between 30 and 40 per cent. in the next financial year in the private care sector.
That represents a phenomenal number of businesses in that sector likely to go out of business. Even so, only weeks before the introduction of community care, we do not know what protection arrangements have been made when contractual arrangements are broken. Local authorities


will be left with the responsibility of clearing up the mess when, for various reasons, homes are unable to continue trading. Nor did the Minister show any sense of the need for a mental health service with a strategy, objectives, minimum requirements and some clarity of purpose to be developed.
I believe that the Minister should pay attention to six basic requirements for mental health services in connection with community care. They must be effective and challenging, created and fashioned by the experience of people involved in the system. They must be non-paternalistic and user-led, enabling and assessing choices and providing a real right of advocacy on behalf of client groups. They must be locally based and accountable and linked to a core of service providers, involving appropriate housing and primary care resources. Strategies must allow the full potential of people with a mental illness of disability to be realised. They must be well resourced and highly motivated and staff must be trained to the highest possible level.
That all requires resources at local authority level, yet, when the Government announced a £34 million fund for fighting mental illness last November, they operated a lock and key principle. Everybody welcomed the statement that additional resources were to be provided for mental illness services—but when we read the small print we realised that there were two major flaws in the proposed expenditure. First, local authorities would have to match payments on the grants pound for pound, at a time when the Department of the Environment is forcing local authorities to make real cuts in their budgets for social services and housing, and across the whole care spectrum. Authorities are also having to make real cuts in capital expenditure, as Environment Ministers told us in the debate on the revenue support grant settlement last week.
Furthermore, only 70 per cent. of the project funds will come from the Government; the remaining 30 per cent. will have to be met from local authorities' own resources. That was a simple and devious financial device which will mean that many local authorities will find it impossible to take up the resources and develop the strategies and objectives that I have outlined. It means that, after 1 April, there will be no real opportunity to develop core services for people with a mental illness.
It is not only Labour and Liberal party members in local government who complain about the way in which the Government have skewed the financial settlement towards the private sector, thus locking out choices and opportunities for other methods of community care. All those involved in community care who advocate on behalf of people suffering from a mental illness have expressed extreme concern because the transitional grant will not be spent on mental health services and because distribution and access to the grant will be arranged so that resources will be insufficient to provide the quality of care demanded in the White Paper.
There will be disarray in decision-making between what the Department of Health says will be the resource levels for local authorities and the reality. There will be a gap between the assessment and the requirement that local authorities provide services for individuals and collections of individuals suffering from a mental illness. There is a real conflict between assessment and advocacy.
There is plain dishonesty when the Department of Health tells local authorities that they must give the client an open and fair assessment that clearly shows his or her needs, and that the client must have an opportunity to advocate for himself or herself—or that others should have the opportunity to do so on their behalf—while in the background the same Department sends local authorities a notorious circular saying that that might not be quite the way in which they should proceed and that they should not provide the client or the advocate with the full assessment arrangements or allow clients access to information in their computer data banks which could determine whether the assessment was appropriate and whether the level of needs revealed by the assessment was to be met.
That is disgraceful. The Government are putting clients, professionals and carers into potential conflict. People should be working together in the community, yet the Government are introducing mistrust of the assessment procedures from the outset. That mistrust will provide opportunities for legal challenges and resources will be spent in the courts instead of delivering professional services and access to those services.
The circular is a cowardly attack by the Government on those least able to defend themselves. The Government have hidden behind the responsibility that they have given to councillors and staff, hoping that, when legal challenges are made, the blame will be pushed on to local authorities rather than on to the circular. At the last minute of the debate, they have introduced confusion, leaving local authorities unable to assess at this stage whether to follow the circular or the original Government advice.
Things are even worse than that. Many local authorities are already involved in assessment procedures and have had advice from their district auditors. For example, in Gloucestershire the district auditor has already met members and officers of the county council and issued the authority with written guidance on assessment. A letter describing the meeting says:
When we met the District Auditor she was very explicit about her advice that Members should make decisions and not leave it to officers and … that we should be open to and honest about the assessment of need.
The district auditor has submitted a letter to the authority setting out the requirements. What are the councillors and officers to do now? Do they follow the written advice of the district auditor? Do they follow the circular? Do they leave it to the courts? Or do they leave it to the Under-Secretary of State for Health?
The position is intolerable. Only a few weeks before taking up their community care responsibilities, local authorities have been given one lot of advice by the district auditor and two different sets of advice by the Department of Health. The Minister must sort that out quickly and assist local authorities or provide them with the management letter sent by the district auditor to Gloucester county councillors.
Will the Minister give us some insight about contingency funds in the event of contractual obligations not being undertaken? In the transfer of resources from local authorities for the provision of individual care packages, it is vital that, when those packages cannot be delivered, there is financial provision for alternative facilities of at least the same quality, and in the same area, within days or hours of the breakdown of the contractual arrangements.
If a care home goes bankrupt, we cannot have local authorities scrabbling round at the last moment trying to find alternative placements for the elderly confused—people who, by the very fact that they have been committed to such institutions, must be frail and must suffer from a mental illness or from mental confusion. That cannot be countenanced in any circumstances. The Government should say now what contingency funds will be available if contractual arrangements are broken, as happens when a care home goes into liquidation. If they are not prepared to tell us now, they should prepare a circular at an early stage.
The Minister should also tell us the position on discharge plans. The Government made great play of discharge plans and talked of the need for discussions between local authorities, health authorities and trusts, but there should now be public honesty about the nature of the plans. Discharge plans should be public documents, so that not only the local authority and those involved in the delivery of the service, but the client groups and the clients themselves have access to the plans and information about them. Then they would know from the outset whether their interests were being met by the discharge plans and whether the assessments concerned allowed them the opportunity to object or to appeal.
The plans should not be excluded from the client's right to knowledge—both as an individual and because plans would be public documents. The community in the area concerned would know what the discharge plan was and what effect it would have. Perhaps the Minister can explain the effect of section 43 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act which deals with interventions.

Mr. Yeo: I shall not have enough time.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister says that he shall not have enough time, but he had plenty of time earlier. I hope that he is not making excuses, as we are all limited by time. He has had months to come to the House and has waited until there were only weeks to go before the implementation of his proposals to sneak in a three-hour debate on a Thursday night, whereas the House should have been allowed proper consideration of them. He should not object to Opposition Members asking for information. If he does not have time, perhaps he can give a commitment to offer me and my colleagues at the earliest opportunity a meeting at the Department or a debate in Government time about the consequences or the proposals.
Finally, perhaps the Minister can explain why yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security could give no commitment to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments on which groups would be able to claim from their local authorities a top-up on income support from 1 April. It seems incredible that the Minister did not know the consequences of the proposals. There appears to be a bit of a shambles between his Department and the Department of Social Security. Will he state clearly, within seven days if possible, the categories affected, so that local authorities, client groups and those who advocate them, can reach reasonable conclusions on the level and quality of care in the community for those who require services under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

Mr. Yeo: We have had a most useful debate, characterised by the high quality of the speeches of hon. Members who have spoken often with professional or local government expertise. I am sorry that as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has used 16 of the available 26 minutes, it may not be possible for me to respond as fully as I would wish to all the points that have been raised, but I shall do my best in the time available.
I am glad to see the return to the Chamber of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) whose attendance during the debate has been somewhat spasmodic. I advise her in good faith that, if she wishes her contributions to be taken seriously, it helps if she attends the bulk of the debate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has just walked in during the past minute or two and is not aware of the fact that the hon. Lady was not even here when the debate started.
Several hon. Members referred to cuts. We are talking about a policy which has experienced a two-thirds real increase in expenditure since 1979. The standard spending assessments for personal social services have risen by more than one fifth in real terms in the past three years. The increase in standard spending assessments for this particular local government function has been higher than for any other except the police. If one includes the special grant that we are now about to approve, the resources available for personal social services in 1993–94 are more than one third higher in real terms than they were only three years ago.
The record of commitment that the Government have shown in allocating resources seems to be unmatched. The transfer money from the Department of Social Security was calculated on the basis of an assumption that income support limits would rise by 4.25 per cent. In fact, they have risen by 3.6 per cent., so even the transfer money has been inflated by assumptions which were calculated to be as generous as possible to the authorities receiving them.
The president of the Association of Directors of Social Services said after the announcement last October:
In the context of the present economic climate",
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health
has done well to get this money and to give us specific funds for the second and third year of implementation".
I began with some sympathy for the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), as he had a difficult task this afternoon. He had to try to find grounds on which to attack or criticise the policy or its implementation. I am only sorry that in doing so he seems to have turned to his sponsors, the National Union of Public Employees, for advice. That is the only explanation that I can think of for his hostility to the independent sector.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Yeo: I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Makerfield has taken up so much time, so I will not give way. The hon. Member for Wakefield has had a good chance to speak today.
The statutory direction on choice that we have issued, and which binds local authorities to recognise the preferences of individuals in terms of where they go to receive residential care, does not seem remotely consistent with the hon. Gentleman's allegation that the policy is provider-led. It is clearly user-led. What did seem to be provider-led was the hon. Gentleman's assertion that


choice for local authorities on how to treat drug and alcohol abusers was somehow constrained by the decision not to ring fence funds for that purpose.
Ring fencing would restrict the freedom of local authorities. It would perpetuate exactly the emphasis on residential provision for that group that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly is keen to see ended for other groups. Nothing whatever prevents local authorities from purchasing the services that are needed.
The hon. Member for Wakefield, in a moment which must have been intended as humorous, suggested that we should wait for independent sector provision to emerge before imposing our 85 per cent. condition—[Interruption.] If he consults Hansard he will find it. I am not quite sure how long we would have to wait in the London boroughs of Lambeth and Hackney for such independent sector provision. I wonder whether independent sector providers would even be able to talk to such authorities if we had not required them to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) paid tribute, for which I am grateful, to the community care support force. Its future is under consideration and it certainly will not continue in its existing form. There will, of course, be other monitoring of the policy after April through the regional health authorities and the social services inspectorate. My hon. Friend referred to the lateness of the figures, but in terms of individual authorities they are very little changed since the publication at the end of November of the split by function of next year's revenue support grant. However, I recognise that local authorities are now drawing up their budgets.
The £100,000 change in Bromley to which the director of social services drew attention is the result of the withholding from the report of the £20 million pending the outcome of the judicial review, so I am confident that my hon. Friend will find the final figure closer to what was originally expected.
He made an interesting and important point about unmet need. It is my view that the local authorities themselves are best placed to assess the need in their areas. That is far better than someone sitting in Whitehall trying to second-guess at a distance what will be needed in each authority. It may save time if I write to my hon. Friend about migration adjustment as it is a rather technical point. I shall be happy to copy in the hon. Member for Wakefield if he wishes.
Local authority topping up is another important point. We cannot sensibly require local authorities automatically to top up the costs of residential accommodation for someone whose placement in that accommodation was not the decision of that local authority, or where there was no opportunity to carry out an assessment. However, we are about to clarify what the local authorities should be doing.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) referred to the Association of Directors of Social Services survey. In my judgment, that was largely an exercise in defending personal social services against the encroachments of other local authority expenditure areas. In Gloucestershire it is much needed. Social services spending there is substantially below the level set in the personal social services standard spending assessment. It is precisely for that reason that we felt it necessary to introduce ring fencing so

that Gloucestershire county council could not remove for other purposes the funds that we wanted to go into community care.
As for the numbers that we are assuming for transfer, we have assumed, based on past trends, a growth of 30,000 a year in Great Britain. Of course, that does not take account of the fact that we believe that in the medium term the policy will result in some diversion from residential into more domiciliary care and improved day and respite care services. The hon. Member for Cheltenham may find that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) can provide some helpful advice about how priorities should be reflected locally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) apologised in advance for the fact that he could not stay until the end of the debate, so I shall deal with his points separately. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East made a constructive speech. I do not know whether funds for this policy will be adequate. As I said, they are certainly much more substantial than anything ever envisaged before and much more substantial than would have been available for this client group if we had not changed the policy.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) seems upset about the growth of the private sector. I can only imagine that he wants to return to the local authority monopoly, inspired perhaps by the example of neighbouring boroughs such as Lambeth, where large-scale fraud is now under investigation, and Sheffield, where charge payers' money is being diverted from providing services to provide accommodation for the local Labour Members of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman wanted facts, and I have just mentioned one. Another fact which I mention is that there has been a substantial shift in local authority expenditure away from residential care and towards domiciliary care. In 1978–79, just over £1 billion was spent on residential care and domiciliary care.

Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: I am sorry, I will not give way. On the same basis—

Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Yeo: On the same basis, in real terms the increase in domiciliary expenditure has been 80 per cent. and in residential care it has been 40 per cent. I am sorry that time will not permit me to answer all of the points raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield, but that is due to something outside my control. I say simply that the Government's commitment to the success of the policy has been demonstrated by our role in the preparations to which local authorities and health authorities have also contributed—

It being three hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [5 February].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Special Grant Report (No. 6) (House of Commons Paper No. 404), which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

Judges

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
The draft order is made under section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It relates to judges of the Court of Appeal. The court is served by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the lords justices of appeal. The President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor also sit there from time to time. The lords justices form the main judicial strength of the court, although High Court judges sit with them to hear criminal appeals and other cases.
It is a matter of natural public concern that there should be sufficient lords justices of appeal to hear cases which involve the liberty of the subject or to determine matters of law which affect the citizen and the state. Apart from the small number of cases which go to the other place in its judicial capacity, the Court of Appeal is the pinnacle of our judicial system. It is therefore vital that its status and efficiency be preserved.
The maximum number of lords justices of appeal was increased from 23 to 28 by the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1987, and 28 judges now hold appointment, one of them since 11 January. The proposed order will increase the maximum number to 29.
In considering the justification for a further increase in the number of lords justices in England and Wales, I hope that it may be helpful to set the matter in the context of demands on the Court of Appeal civil division and the resources that have been available to that court recently.
At the end of 1991, Lord Donaldson, the then Master of the Rolls, in his review of the legal year, drew attention to the need for a
small increase in the judicial establishment of the Court of Appeal".
At that time the establishment stood at 27 lords justices, in addition to Lord Donaldson. In the following year, the new Master of the Rolls echoed the call by identifying an increase in the number of lords justices sitting in the Court of Appeal as one means of helping to reverse the trend of increasing backlogs of work in that court.
The number of final appeals received in the civil appeals office over the past seven years has remained roughly constant, at about 900 cases a year. Although interlocutory appeals over that period have increased from fewer than 700 receipts to almost 800 in 1992, it still seems unlikely that the rise in backlogs of about 25 per cent. can be accounted for by additional appeals. Rather, it seems likely to be the result of a fall in the rate at which cases are disposed of.
It is not easy to determine the exact causes lying behind that fall, but the increase in reserved judgment from 15 per cent. in 1986 to 31 per cent. in 1991 suggests that one reason is that cases are becoming more complex and are therefore taking longer to dispose of. That view is reinforced by an increase in the number of civil appeals which take more than a year to hear.
In the light of the increasing backlog and the call made by Lord Donaldson for a
small increase in the judicial establishment",

which his successor echoed, an additional lord justice was appointed last month. That brought the complement up to the statutory limit, and the wish to add a further lord justice to the strength has necessitated this order.
I recognise that it may be argued that, given the current position in the civil division of the Court of Appeal, an increase of two lords justices is not in itself sufficient. I should explain to the House that the ability of the Court of Appeal to get through its business is not determined solely by the number of lords justices.
An internal report in 1989, which the then Master of the Rolls endorsed, made it clear that the need for lords justices could be lessened by employing more legal staff in the civil appeals office. In recognition of that fact, five new legal posts have since been provided for that office.
For completeness' sake, the House, in considering the justification for the proposed increase in the limit, will wish to bear in mind the fact that, the civil division of the Court of Appeal aside, lords justices also sit in its criminal division and the divisional court, as well as undertaking work outside the court, such as public inquiries and the chairmanship of such bodies as the Security Commission.
After careful consideration of the current and predicted work load of the Court of Appeal, it has been concluded that an additional appointment is necessary at this time and will assist in the more efficient dispatch of business of the courts, and that the House should further discharge its responsibility by approving the draft order. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The increase in the number of those appointed to the Court of Appeal is inadequate. The small increase in the complement which was envisaged by the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, could not have been smaller in terms of the Government's recognition of the need which he outlined. Lord Donaldson asked for a small increase. I doubt whether he expected that it would be as small as one. We argue that the Government have not, with this order, satisfied the requirements of the Court of Appeal.
We want to know whether the Lord Chancellor and his Department took the advice of the present Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice before determining the figure of one which is referred to in the order. Did the Master of the Rolls advise the Lord Chancellor that an increase in the complement by only one was required? I doubt whether that was the case. In the interests of open government, I hope that the Minister will tell us how he and his Department arrived at an increase of one, bearing in mind the current pressure of work in the Court of Appeal.
The Minister referred to the remarks of Lord Donaldson as the genesis of this provision. If his remarks have had that effect, and several months later the Government have come forward with this paltry increase of one, it is to be hoped that Lord Donaldson's remarks on his retirement with regard to the number of judges currently sitting in the High Court will also be taken into account. The Minister will know, or certainly should know, the words of Lord Donaldson on that occasion. He was supported by all the most senior judges in England and Wales, without exception, who had come to that place to pay him worthy and just tribute. He said:
I have no doubt that it is my duty to inform and warn both the Government and the public if the level of resources


is such that the standard of service which the Court can offer is likely to decline or is in fact declining.
The Minister has pointed out that, in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, it is necessary and it is common practice from time to time for High Court judges to sit alongside Lords Justices of Appeal.
Lord Donaldson warned that, unless the number of High Court judges was increased and extra resources were provided, there would inevitably be a further decline in standards when standards were already declining. He chose to make that point in his valedictory remarks. His remarks have been echoed time and time again by his brother judges. Time and time again the Government have set their face against increasing the complement of High Court judges.
Undoubtedly we shall hear from the Minister in reply that the Lord Chancellor has established a review. When will we hear the results of the review, if indeed they are to be published? Bizarrely, at a time when the Government parade themselves in the clothes of open government and purport to share with all their citizens the nature, responsibilities and, in so far as they can, the workings of government, we still do not know whether the findings and recommendations resulting from the review will be published so that all may read them.
As the Minister said in his opening remarks, the complement of judges in the Court of Appeal and the High Court is a matter of legitimate public concern. The matter has been aired in the other place on numerous occasions and we welcome the opportunity to explore it in this House. The number of judges who sit in the High court relates to the number of judges who sit in the Court of Appeal and affects the expeditious dispatch of work. The overwhelming burden of evidence is of a civil and criminal justice system in a state of crisis.
That crisis has been drawn to the attention of the Government repeatedly. As long as the Government fail to address it, and turn a deaf ear to those who provide and those who consume judicial services, we shall air anxieties about the administration of civil and criminal justice at every opportunity on the Floor of the House.
We are indebted to their Lordships for their contribution to the debate, and particularly to the Lord Chief Justice. He has been a shining example of the importance of making heard in the clearest and most effect terms the contribution to the public debate of the senior judiciary. It was interesting to note his words, which were widely reported at the weekend, about the number of judges appointed to the High Court. As I know that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, judges in the Court of Appeal are ultimately drawn from High Court judges. You will appreciate the importance of ensuring that sufficient judges sit in the High Court, from whom the additional complement of judges may be drawn.
We are obviously anxious to ensure that the workings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal are not impaired by insufficient judges in the High Court. The Minister will recognise the importance of the fact that the quality of judges in the Court of Appeal is perhaps higher than it has ever been. The most recent appointment was a particularly welcome one. It was broadly and warmly welcomed not only in the legal profession generally but outside it. One wants to ensure that the complement of judges in the High Court is such as to provide the broadest

possible pool of high-quality judges. Therefore, it is important to ensure that further appointments are made to the High Court. The importance of that and the Government's failure in that regard was ably demonstrated by the Lord Chief Justice's remarks at the weekend.
The Lord Chief Justice threatened a confrontation with the Government on the issue unless he was allowed to recruit more High Court Judges. Although it does not go far enough, we welcome the order to increase the complement of judges in the Court of Appeal. But our question for the Lord Chancellor—or his surrogate, who will pass it on to the Lord Chancellor—is: when will we hear that the long called for and much sought after appointments to the High Court will be made?
When will the Minister and the Lord Chancellor announce the appointment of more High Court judges? Why is their dilatoriness so great that the Lord Chief Justice was forced to the point of making a veiled threat of resignation? He said:
I have no immediate intention of resignation. But I can't do the job unless I have the judges.
Tonight we know that he is to have at least one more judge in the Court of Appeal, but we have heard nothing that will give Lord Taylor any confidence that the Government take seriously the obvious need for more judges in the High Court.
Judges appointed to the Court of Appeal currently have a critical function, which is made more important by the increase in the amount and complexity of work with which the High Court generally must deal. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in autumn last year the number of outstanding appeals had risen from 989 to 1,130 in 12 months. That led to a 12.5 per cent. increase in waiting times. Since then, the position has worsened, and it continues to deteriorate. We are not convinced that the addition of one judge to the Court of Appeal will make an appreciable difference to the current waiting times and the logjam in appeals.
One of Lord Donaldson's concerns was the fact that Appeal Court judges were increasingly being diverted to deal with criminal cases. He said that the
civil division may be confined to hearing the more urgent appeals, leaving the rest to wait for very long periods of time".
That is all the more reason for increasing not only the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, but the number of High Court judges generally; such an increase would in turn affect the work load of the Court of Appeal.
A number of their Lordships, on both sides of the House and on the Cross Benches, pointed out forcefully the implications for civil liberties and the liberty of the subject, and the other potential constitutional dangers of failing to maintain the judiciary at its full complement. That would affect all the various divisions of the High Court; its most deleterious impact would not be confined to the expanding area of judicial review. It has become increasingly necessary to test in the courts an over-mighty state—a Government who have become too complacent and too accustomed to the exercise of unfettered power. The judiciary manage to ensure that some restraint is placed on the excesses of Government.
Of late, a number of Conservative Members have had their knuckles well and truly rapped—deservedly—by their Lordships, as a result of such excesses. A number of the mighty have been brought low and their golden locks have turned grey and hoary as a result of their experiences


at the hands of the judges. We want more of that, which is one reason why we welcome the increase in the complement of the Court of Appeal.
We want the Government to be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny in terms of the exercise of their powers. It may be uncharitable, but we cannot help suspecting that their tardiness in regard to the appointment of judges—be it to the Court of Appeal or to the High Court—is linked to a disinclination to strengthen the hands of the judiciary. That is well demonstrated by their repeated failure to respond to the demand for an increase in numbers in the higher judiciary, and accounts for their presentation of an order that proposes an increase of only one to the complement of judges in the Court of Appeal.
We want the Minister to say that he will keep under constant review the number of judges in the Court of Appeal and the court's need for resources. We hope that the court will not have to wait for the valedictory utterances of the current Master of the Rolls to secure another increase of one.
The workings of the Lord Chancellor's Department should be made more public than they have been to date: the Department is a relatively new constitutional creation in its current form, with a House of Commons Minister having responsibility. We want to hear and see more of it; we want its workings to be more publicly revealed, in accordance with the spirit of the citizens charter. We are even happy to see more exposure for the Minister: indeed, the more he was exposed, the more I would welcome it, because the more we examine the Government's approach to the whole issue of civil and criminal justice, the less satisfactory it is revealed to be.
What is so disturbing is the fact that the Government seem to be immune to reasoned, objective criticism It is worth referring, albeit briefly, to the debate in the other place, which was initiated by Lord Irvine of Lairg on 22 October last year. On that occasion, judge after judge, retired judge after retired judge, and noble and learned Lord after noble and learned Lord rose to refer to the insufficiency of the higher judiciary. At the end of the debate, after a series of distinguished contributions, the Lord Chancellor was asked a direct question by Lord Irvine of Lairg: did he or did he not
accept that there is a clear and present need for more High Court judges?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1992: Vol. 539, c. 897.]
The Lord Chancellor replied at some length, saying that he believed that it was necessary to provide a basis for the answer to that question, and that he expected the review that was currently under way to do so.
We want the Minister to state unequivocally that that review will soon be completed, that its findings will be published in full and that all the resources needed by judges involved in the review will be provided. We also want to hear that the Government will accept the review's findings. Having prayed in aid the existence of the review for so long, for the Government then to say that once its findings are known, not only will they not be bound by them, but they do not intend to publish them, would result in their losing all credibility.
At a time of crisis in the judicial system, when there is open dissention between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor about the sufficiency of judicial numbers, the public are entitled to a clear and unequivocal reassurance on the issue. We intend to ensure that they receive that reassurance.

8 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I apologise to the Minister for my late arrival, but I was caught on the wrong foot because I thought that the debate was starting a little later. I am glad that the Minister is likely to reply as he will have an opportunity to consider the few remarks that I want to make.
It is a definite step in the right direction for a junior Minister to he present to answer such a debate. All too often in the past there has been no direct accountability in the House, and I gladly acknowledge that step tonight. However, the subject that we are debating—the adequacy of the establishment of judges in the Court of Appeal—is of great importance, and it is not wholly satisfactory that there is no Cabinet member to answer the debate. In saying that, I cast no reflection on the Minister, whose personal credentials are held in high regard.
However, the constitutional arrangements are unsatisfactory. They confine to another place the Minister of Justice, in this country. He has the anomalous role of presiding over debates in another place and, from that position, making the appointments to the Bench and overseeing what we have by way of a Ministry of Justice, with responsibility for the state of the statute book and the state of law reform in this country. That anomaly can be corrected only by the appointment of a Minister of Justice who is a politically accountable and fully fledged Cabinet Minister elected to the House of Commons. Until then. I fear that such issues such as the one that we are discussing tonight will not be given the attention that they deserve. In the eyes of judiciary, such issues are clearly of great importance.
It has not been common in the past to find senior members of the judiciary who are openly critical of the Government in terms of the manner in which they have discharged their responsibility for the administration of justice. However, on the issue of appointments to the Bench, judges have been speaking out with a clarity which betrays the urgency of the matter.
The proposal that we are discussing may seem modest—it augments the Court of Appeal by one appointment. Indeed, considered in the light of the remarks—to which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has already alluded—of Lord Chief Justice Taylor and others, about the under-provision in the higher reaches of the judiciary in this country, it is a modest development. The most notable speech was that made by Lord Chief Justice Taylor in the Dimbleby lecture, when he said that the judicial deficit was denying access to justice. The modest proposal before us does not meet that deficit.
The Court of Appeal is often augmented by judges from the High Court bench who sit for specific appointments and cases. That may be regarded as an inevitable and not wholly desirable illustration of the shortages, which the provision will by no means make good. The consequence of High Court judges augmenting the Court of Appeal in that ad hoc way ripples through the judicial system. Those judges have, in turn, to be replaced on the bench, thus contributing to the problems of the High Court. Therefore, in dealing with the proposal for one additional appointment, we must not overlook the fact that the issues are closely interrelated.
The evidence shows that expedition in the discharge of justice is being hampered by the shortage of senior judges. That is a matter of the greatest concern. I have no doubt


of the Lord Chancellor's interest in the appointment of judges. He has always made it plain that he attaches the highest importance to the appointment of judges of a suitable calibre. He devotes much personal attention to ensuring that that aspect of his duties is fully discharged, and there is general admiration for some of his more recent appointments to the higher roles. I am happy to acknowledge the distinction of those appointments to the Court of Appeal and other senior courts of the realm. However, the Lord Chancellor's job goes beyond choosing suitable men and women for those senior positions. The Lord Chancellor must also ensure that there are adequate numbers on the bench to discharge judicial functions.
It has not been uncommon for judges openly to comment on such matters. Perhaps the recognition of the separate nature of their role and their natural reluctance to enter the political cockpit is not only understandable, but desirable. The distinction between the judiciary, and the Executive and the legislature, although not reflected in a written constitution—as it might be, and indeed is, in most countries—is one that we would do well to retain. However, when the line is crossed by the judges themselves—as it has been recently—we must recognise that a penumbra of discontent and anxiety lies behind that action. We are entitled to ask exactly what representations have been made by the judiciary about the numbers that they would consider necessary to ensure that there is no backlog of cases and that justice is not being denied.
The issue of a review has already been mentioned in the debate. We want to know how speedily it will be concluded and what evidence has been presented. One of the great anxieties about the judicial system—it is germane to the order—is the evidence of a further escalation of the costs of the judicial system, particularly legal aid. We are not debating legal aid today, but there is no doubt that the escalation of unit costs—which has, in turn, caused a rise in legal aid costs—is due to the number of judges available to hear cases. Many cases have to be adjourned because there are not sufficient judges to hear them. That has resulted in gross inefficiencies as well as the denial of justice. That was led in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee as recently as last week.
We are not talking about something abstract. It is not a matter of plucking numbers out of the air and saying that a certain number of additional judges would be appropriate to meet the problem. These are serious and hard questions, which must be answered by the responsible Department of State. We are entitled to know what evidence it has, and why it has taken such an extraordinarily small step. The appointment of one more judge to the Court of Appeal will have only the most modest impact on the High Court, where it appears that the worst problem exists, and would appear to go only a small way to meeting the anxieties so openly expressed by the most senior judges in the realm.

Mr. John M. Taylor: It is gracious of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to acknowledge the ministerial post that I am doing my best to discharge. He merely addresses a truism when he says that the responsible Cabinet Minister is in the other place. My recent visits to that other place to listen to debates left

me with the clear impression that there is no shortage of strongly held opinions on these matters in that House as well as in this.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is right to say that expedition is the friend of justice, just as delay is its enemy. I would not concede to him, however, that expedition in judicial matters resides exclusively in judge numbers. There are many other factors, and these are urgently exercising both the Lord Chancellor and his Department. There is a wish to improve the judicial process and to simplify it. Those matters are exercising the Runciman commission, which I understand is due to report later this year. It will note that its findings are to be most closely studied by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman will know this, I think, but I remind him that the hearing of criminal appeals has always fallen to High Court judges. Before the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1908, the Court of Crown Cases Reserved would consider appeals arising from points of law. That was done en bloc, with all High Court Queen's Bench division judges sitting. The Lord Chief Justice would preside. The Court of Criminal Appeal succeeded the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, and in 1966 the Court of Criminal Appeal was replaced by the Court of Appeal criminal division. It was felt that the Queen's Bench judges sitting therein would benefit from the chairmanship of the Lord Justice in each court. There is therefore no novelty in High Court judges participating in the affairs of the Court of Appeal.
I now direct my remarks more particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).

Mr. Maclennan: Before the Minister does that, I think that he will acknowledge that the Supreme Court Act 1981 makes specific and explicit provision for the appointment of judges and others to sit in courts on an ad hoc and temporary basis. It appears that that temporariness has been extended considerably to the point at which it is even being questioned whether what is being done is within the scope of the 1981 Act. It is extremely questionable whether appointments are any longer to be regarded as temporary.

Mr. Taylor: I shall have more to say about the strength of the appeal bench. Although all of us who have mentioned the matter may have risked the attentions of the Chair, I shall try to say in what I hope will be germane remarks a word or two about High Court judges, even though the order does not strictly relate to that section of the judiciary.
The Opposition's general concern to maintain our system of justice in good order is shared by the Government—hence the review of High Court judges' work, deployment and numbers. They are inevitably a scarce resource. We intend to ensure, however, that there are enough of them and that their skills are carefully husbanded. I think that we have the good will of all interested parties in taking that line.
I say, slightly reproachfully, that it would be improper to suggest that the Lord Chancellor would seek to weaken judicial manpower for political reasons. If pressed, I do not think that the hon. Member for Brent, South would subscribe to such a suggestion. I hope that he would not—indeed, I am sure he would not. To propose judicial review almost as a substitute for political opposition tells us much more about the Opposition than about judicial review.

Mr. Boateng: The Minister must face the fact that the number of applicants for judicial review has increased from 685 in 1982 to 2,437 last year. It is no coincidence that, in those 10 years, there has been only one Government in power—a Conservative Government. It is no coincidence also that it has been found that, with a Conservative Government in power, with a working majority, an effective way of challenging the abuses introduced by that Administration has been to use the divisional court. That is not to cast any reproach on the Opposition: it is to take the Government to task and to commend the vigour of the judiciary and the enterprise of the citizen.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows that judicial review has been a growth industry. The only interesting speculation is whether it would have grown even faster had we had a Labour Government during the relevant years. I say with some satisfaction that that is entirely hypothetical: it did not arise and it does not arise.
The hon. Member for Brent, South speaks rightly about the quality of the appeal bench. We have fine traditions and high standards. He asked me, as did the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, whether one additional lord justice was sufficient. One additional lord justice was appointed last month, which made a total of 28. If the order is agreed to, a further lord justice will be appointed soon. An internal report presented in June 1989 recommended that additional lawyers be made available to the civil appeal office. With the assistance of the judiciary, calculations showed that six lawyers could save the time of two lords justices. Five additional lawyers were recruited after April 1990.
The former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, said in his valedictory speech in July 1992, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South has referred, that he was sure that the predicted saving in judicial time would accrue. The overall result is that, once the further lord justice is appointed, in two years two extra lords justices will have been added to the strength and the time of almost two lords justices released to meet any new work load—in a sense, four net new lords justices.

Mr. Boateng: It is a novel and interesting formula that two lords justices a-sitting equals six lawyers a-scribbling. We must get to the bottom of this. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the appointment of two Lords Justices is saved by the appointment of six lawyers to the servicing

department? If the Minister maintains that that is the case, I hope—he can have nothing to fear from this—that he will put the basis of that formula and calculation in the Library of the House of Commons so that we can all share in it, inform our legal and judicial brethren as to how they might better organise their time and also reassure the public on that point.

Mr. Taylor: The answer is yes, I do mean what the hon. Gentleman asks whether I meant. I draw my guidance in those comments, which were made in completely good faith and with confidence, from—not least—the last two reports of the Masters of the Rolls on the workings of the Court of Appeal.
As the hon. Gentleman invites me to put some comment into the public domain, I shall do so. We live in a world of scarce resources in every sense and there are many who claim, with every possible best intention, that more resources must be deployed in this, that or the other direction. Meanwhile, the Lord Chancellor has the task. It stays with him. After all the urging, his is the decision. In this, he has responded to calls for more lords justices made by old and new Masters of the Rolls in their annual reviews.
I risk a bare trespass, as others have done, on High Court judges. That there should be sufficient High Court judges is a matter of natural public concern. In recognition of that concern, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice asked a group of officials and some senior judges to advise them on the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges. The only comment that I should properly make—I was challenged to make it by the hon. Member for Brent, South—is whether that report will be published. The answer is that the report was to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. It is a matter for them to decide between them and jointly whether it is to be published—and it will be.

Mr. Boateng: May I have the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): No, not tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.

Judgments

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.
The purpose of the draft order is to make some modifications to the rules which govern the allocation of jurisdiction to the courts of the different parts of the United Kingdom in civil cases. Article 2 deals with cases which have a connection with more than one part of the United Kingdom—for example, where the plaintiff is English and the defendant Scottish. Article 3 deals with the rules of jurisdiction in Scotland.
Our present rules allocating jurisdiction within the United Kingdom are contained in schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and are based on those in the 1968 Brussels convention. That convention is concerned with jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments as between member states of the EC, and the main purpose of the 1982 Act was to give effect to the convention in the United Kingdom.
The rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels convention have now been modified in various respects—none of the changes is of the greatest significance—and we have decided that where our rules follow those in the convention they should follow suit with regard to the amendments as well. The power to do that is in section 14 of the 1982 Act.
The amendments are technical and we have consulted the legal profession about them. Both the Law Society and the Bar Council have confirmed that the amendments are sensible.
The order makes amendments to schedule 4 in three areas—contracts of employment, related claims concerning a contract, and real property and holiday lettings.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It may save my intervening again if the Minister could say whether the professional organisations in Scotland were consulted and whether the Scottish Law Officers gave their views. They are not represented here tonight.

Mr. Taylor: I invited the Scottish Law Officers to be present if they so wished. All those whom the hon. Gentleman's question implies he hopes were canvassed were so canvassed.
The basic rule of jurisdiction in the Brussels convention is that a defendant must be sued in the country where he is domiciled. In specific types of case, alternatives are offered. Thus, article 5(1) provides that, in contract cases, a defendant may instead be sued in the courts for the place of performance of the contract. The convention said nothing originally about individual contracts of employment. It now contains a provision that the place of performance of such a contract is the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work. If he does not habitually work in any one country, he may choose to sue the employer in the courts for the place of business through which he was engaged.
I see no reason why schedule 4 should not be amended to keep it in line with the Brussels convention in that respect, and the order provides accordingly. It will make it clear that someone from Glasgow, for instance, who works

in Scotland for a company based in London will be able to bring proceedings against the company in a matter relating to his employment in Scotland.
The order also permits a further choice which is given to a plaintiff employee by a new fifth paragraph in article 17 of the Brussels convention. That paragraph invalidates a choice of court agreement in cases concerning a contract of employment unless the agreement was made after the dispute arose. However, it allows an employee, but not an employer, to take advantage of a pre-dispute agreement which confers jurisdiction on a court other than that of the defendant's domicile or that of the place and performance of the contract.
Secondly, new paragraph 4 of article 6 of the Brussels convention provides that where there is both a contract case and a case relating to rights in real property between the same parties, the plaintiff may bring both actions in the country where the property is situated, rather than having to take separate actions in different countries. That is clearly convenient for the parties, and a similar provision has therefore been added to schedule 4.
Finally, the general rule that cases relating to property must be heard in the country where the property is situated has been amended with respect to the particular case of short-term holiday lets. Article 16(1) now confers alternative jurisdiction in such cases on the courts of the defendant's domicile, provided that both the landlord and the tenant are natural persons—that is to say, not companies—and are domiciled in the same country. We agree that this special provision is jusitified. It would mean, for example, that a dispute between two English people over a holiday letting in Scotland would not have to be heard in Scotland if it was more convenient for it to be dealt with in England.
Article 3 of the order amends schedule 8 to the 1982 Act which contains the rules as to jurisdiction within Scotland. Those rules also follow those of the Brussels convention, for the most part, and it is proposed to make the same amendments to them as those which have been made to schedule 4. These amendments also have the support of the legal profession in Scotland.
The changes contained in this order are useful ones which reflect those that have been made to the Brussels convention in the light of experience of its working. As I have said, interested bodies within the legal professions have agreed that they are sensible, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The contents of this order are non-contentious. They have been the subject of consultation and are, as the Minister has outlined, broadly welcomed. Having said that, it is interesting to reflect in a little detail on the primary basis of jurisdiction under the convention and to relate that to the schedules referred to in the order.
The primary basis is the domicile of the defendant. Unless an alternative basis of jurisdiction applies, a defendant domiciled in a member state must be sued in the courts of that state. There are, however, several alternative bases of jurisdiction which provide what might be termed non-exorbitant bases of jurisdiction of the type which all courts have traditionally claimed, so that a defendant domiciled in another member state may be sued in the


English court if certain conditions apply. In a contract case, the condition would be that the contract was to be performed here.
The Minister has given an example of the impact of the order on contracts of employment and he gave an example of the relevance of the place of work and the place of performance of the contract.
Secondly, in a tort case, the defendant, albeit domiciled in another state, may be sued in the English courts if the damage was sustained or the tort was committed here.
Thirdly, and not unimportantly, subject to article 16 of the convention, the defendant has, in certain circumstances outlined in article 16, the option of voluntarily submitting to proceedings here. That is what I wish to speak about.
For many years, the courts of England have been developing a reputation and an area of expertise unparallelled in Europe or, I would go so far as to say, in the world. In 80 per cent. of the cases in the commercial court, one party is foreign; in 50 per cent. of cases both parties are foreign. The significance of this order to those figures will be obvious to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. as it will to the House—as will the concern that exists about the operation of the commercial court and therefore the context in which these orders will be applied.
The commercial court increasingly finds itself unable to operate as it should because of a shortage of High Court judges. That shows the relevance of an issue on which we have touched time and time again during this evening's work: the insufficiency of High Court judges. The importance of exploring this matter in full has dawned on Conservative Members, because leading City institutions are increasingly expressing their concern about the acute shortage of judges in the commercial court, a shortage which has an impact of the issues that are before the House tonight. Bodies such as the stock exchange, the Baltic Exchange, the British Bankers Association, the Grain and Feed Traders Association—not a body that normally comes to the attention of any but a highly specialised section of the public—have expressed their concern about the insufficiency of High Court judges in the commercial court.
I ask hon. Members to imagine what would occur when somebody was seeking to exercise his or her rights under this order. The Minister has referred to the schedule, which deals with holiday lets and with several other contractual cases that are likely to find their way into our courts. What will be the situation in the High Court and commercial court when this order is brought into effect?
Mr. Justice Saville gives some indication of that. He warns that the court's business is grinding to a halt. We are being invited by the Government to give effect to an order which will extend the jurisdiction in circumstances in which, already, the commercial court finds itself unable to deal with the business at present before it. Mr. Justice Saville says that the court's list
is in complete disarray with no realistic prospect of being able to restore order. There is insufficient judicial manpower to deal with the cases stood out, let alone cope with the existing list as it comes forward. The carefully nurtured reputation of the commercial court is at risk of being lost.
The House is being asked to sanction an order which comes into effect at a time when the list of the commercial court is, to quote Mr. Justice Saville, "in complete disarray".
It is worth listening to the concerns expressed by the head of litigation at Lovell White Durrant, Mr. Anthony Pugh-Thomas. He said:
We have clients raring to go the week after next, and we have to tell them that they won't be heard until next April.
That was the situation on 8 December 1992 and it is even worse now.

Mr. John M. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The kinds of proceedings covered by this order are not suitable for, nor would they be covered by or litigated in, the commercial court.

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This order is principally about the simplification of formalities. I can understand the hon. Gentleman developing that argument, but he seems to be developing it a little more widely. Perhaps he could come back to the order, which is pretty tightly drawn, as he, as a lawyer, will understand.

Mr. Boateng: I will, of course, accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and assistance in this matter.
I think that it is worth looking at section 2 of the order, if the Minister will turn his attention to that. It refers to article 5, which deals with matters relating to individual contracts of employment. It inserts additional words and says that we are to look at where the employee habitually carries out his work. It goes on to say:
If the employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country, the employer may also be sued in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee was or is now situated.
Inevitably, the business infrastructure, which always, of course, includes the court system of any jurisdiction, will act as a magnet to the establishment of businesses, where the jurisdiction permits it, and this order deals with the issue of jurisdiction and will act as a magnet to action. Therefore, it is highly pertinent to examine the state of our commercial court, and I do not see how the Minister can pretend otherwise.
If a senior partner in a major City law firm says that considerable inconvenience is being caused to clients and that the state of the commercial court is a matter of embarrassment to the profession, that is relevant. What happens in the commercial court is inevitably influenced by what is happening elsewhere within the parameters of the High Court. Let me give an example.
Mr. Justice Saville was promised two more commercial court judges. I intend to go back to the Government's failings time and time again until this issue is resolved—that is why we are here; that is why we are spending the time we are on the floor of the House on this issue—and until the Government address the issue of how the measures which they introduce impact on the work load of the court.
Has the Minister considered this issue? Is there, as we speak, someone somewhere in the Lord Chancellor's Department who knows what the impact of this measure will be on the court system? Will it lead—this is a legitimate question to which we are entitled to receive an answer—to more people choosing to litigate in this country? Will it lead to an increase in the number of actions brought in this country? If it will, it is relevant that, as a result of delays elsewhere in the system of justice, Mr. Justice Taylor is unable to provide Mr. Justice Saville with his two more commercial court judges. Mr. Justice Saville


expects that, instead of six judges, there will be only four. Three of them will be tied up on long cases, so that leaves one judge to handle the work of six.
In an earlier debate, which was brought to a speedy end, the Minister sought to introduce the novel formula that two Lords Justices of Appeal equal six lawyers servicing a department. Here we have one judge required to do the work of six judges. The broad statement of fact made by Mr. Justice Saville is that unless something is done now—this was in December, two months ago—the commercial court will cease to operate next term. That inevitably has a bearing on matters which the order seeks to address.
May we have some answers on the points made in relation to the likely increase in the number of actions and the extent to which the impact of that increase on judicial manpower has been taken into account? Can we hope that when the review of appointments to the High Court is published—we warmly welcome its publication—the passing of measures such as this will have been taken into account when ensuring that there are enough judges in the High Court?
Unless we have those assurances, many more evenings will be taken up with debates such as these. That is a promise: the Minister can be sure that we intend to fulfil our responsibility to make sure that the administration of justice takes place in the interests of the citizens and consumers.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked me with some force—his question brooked no sidestep—whether I would state to him, to the House and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the impact of the proposals contained in this order was measurable. My answer is that the impact will be benign. It will not increase the number of actions; it will merely affect the distribution of actions within the United Kingdom by conveniencing the parties and giving them better and easier choices of venue.
That is why I submit that the measure has no enemies. In the course of its formulation, all interested parties, court users and wider interests, were consulted to find out whether it was genuinely thought to be an improvement—not a slavish imitation of something worked out in Brussels, or, indeed, something eccentrically and particularly British, but something between the two, taking the best of the European practice and the best of our own experience, reaching a compromise, and

conveniencing litigant and lawyer alike. I suppose that one always has some innocence to lose—perhaps that is part of the joy of life—but I honestly did not imagine that the provisions would lead to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the commercial court. However, I can deal with them briefly.
On the commercial court, I have nothing to add to what I said on 19 January in an Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottoway). The remarks that I made then post-date the hon. Gentleman's comments this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

DEFENCE RESEARCH AGENCY

That the draft Defence Research Agency Trading Fund Order 1993, which was laid before the House on 22nd January, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Rescue Helicopter (RAF Brawdy)

Mr. Nick Ainger: The petition has been signed by 19,676 people from Pembrokeshire and the rest of Wales. They are outraged because the Ministry of Defence intends to end search and rescue helicopter operations at RAF Brawdy in my constituency on 1 April 1994.
The petition states that the decision
will cause unnecessary deaths due to the greatly increased response times to reach incidents on the cliffs and coastal waters of West Wales and the international waters of the Celtic Sea and the Atlantic Ocean
as well as on the mountains of west and south Wales. People are also outraged because the Ministry of Defence is putting the saving of money before the saving of lives.
The petition ends:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House do not proceed with these proposals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

West Midlands Regional Health Authority

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Richard Burden: It is just 11 days since an announcement was made in the west midlands by the regional health authority and the South Birmingham district health authority. It was not made in the House. It was announced that the Secretary of State had decided that two hospitals in the South Birmingham district—the Woodlands Royal orthopaedic hospital and the accident hospital—were to close and that a third hospital—the general hospital—would lose its medical beds to make way for services transferred from the two closing hospitals.
The decision had been trailed for a long time. It had caused more controversy in my constituency and others than anything else that I can recall. People in Birmingham are asking why the hospitals are closing. I suspect that, when he replies, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), will tell us, as a subsequent statement told the people of Birmingham, that it has something to do with improving hospital and health care services for the people of Birmingham, and something to do with ensuring greater access to higher quality health care. If the debate runs true to form, that is what the Minister will tell us today.
Not many people in Birmingham or the west midlands as a whole will agree with the Minister. The South Birmingham community health council has roundly condemned the proposals and pointed out the effect that they will have on patient care. The Audit Commission undertook a study which showed that if the two hospitals were closed and many much needed beds were taken in the general hospital, it would ensure that other hospitals in north and east Birmingham were overstretched.
Consultants have warned of the danger of cross-infection if a burns unit from the accident hospital and all the orthopaedic cases from the Woodlands hospital are put together in the inadequate surroundings that will exist in the general hospital. Perhaps most importantly, the local people who use the services have said that they do not want the closures but that they want the two hospitals to remain open.

Dr. Lynne Jones: May I remind my hon. Friend that it is not only the people of Birmingham but the majority of medical staff and consultants who are worried about the proposals? Only today I had a telephone conversation with a consultant worried about the relocation of the major injuries unit from the accident hospital to the general hospital. At present, the unit is located next to casualty on the ground floor. The new facilities will be on the second floor, requiring the use of a lift. That is for critically ill and multiply injured patients for whom every second counts. They will have to go up two floors, having got into the centre of the city at a time when major road projects will cause disruption. That is another example of how patient care will be affected.

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes her point forcefully.
The argument that the closures will improve services does not stand up to close inspection, and if the closures

are nothing to do with improving services, what are they for? It seems to me and to most people in Birmingham that the closures are to do with the lack of money. To put it simply, South Birmingham health authority is going broke under the Government's policies. Community services in South Birmingham are under strain.
A constituent has been told that her nine-year-old boy will have to wait six months merely to see about an appointment for occupational therapy. Another constituent is having to wait 91 weeks to see a consultant who will then decide whether he can go on a waiting list for treatment on an arthritic knee.
Mental health services are also being affected. Only the other day we heard that nurses who had trained in South Birmingham and who could have used their talents for the authority and given health care to the people there will not be able to get permanent employment in a Birmingham hospital.
Why are South Birmingham hospitals so short of money? Why is the South Birmingham health authority in such difficulty? At one level, the situation is a testimony to the underfunding that the Government have brought to the national health service. The latest waiting list figures were issued just the other day. Over the past few months, Ministers have alleged that they have been reducing waiting lists. This is something that they have trumpeted. It is true that, in the west midlands, there has been a reduction of 38 in the number of people waiting between one and two years for hospital treatment. On the other hand, there has been an increase of more than 5,000 in the number waiting less than one year—the second worst in the entire country. There are now more than 90,000 people awaiting treatment in west midlands hospitals. In other words, the good news is not quite as good as Ministers would have us believe.
But the problems in the west midlands do not arise just from underfunding. Some of us have severe reservations about the use to which the money that is available is being put. In the last few years, a series of financial scandals have gripped the West Midlands regional health authority.
There has been the scandal of Qa Business Services, formerly the computer division—full title, management services division—of the regional health authority. That service was privatised. How the decision was made nobody quite knows; who was involved in it nobody quite knows, but it happened. Qa Business Services went bust within 18 months of its formation. Its employees—people who had previously worked for the computer division—lost their jobs, and more than 130 of them will lose up to two thirds of their pension entitlement because, as they were informed just a few months ago, the pension fund that they had been told was secure cannot meet the liabilities.
Then there is a consultancy, known as URG, which was meant to bring value for money to the west midlands supplies organisation. In that case, millions and millions of pounds were squandered. There was not much value for money there. A system called Healthtrac—again connected with the west midlands supplies organisation, and meant to be an all-singing, all-dancing new computer system—is the subject of an Audit Commission investigation. All the signs are that the report will show that more millions of public money have been wasted. This was confirmed last night by the former chair of the regional health authority.
Financial Information Packages—another private firm set up through the West Midlands regional health


authority—has acted as a kind of siphon for public money. Apparently a proposed development on the land occupied by the Rubery hospital will fund the health care programme for Birmingham in the years to come, but nobody knows what the terms of that deal are; nobody knows whether it will bring much money in; nobody knows the exact terms of the deal between the health authority and the developers, or even whether the developers are really developers.
I come now to the South Birmingham health authority, whose formation involved a merger with the former Central Birmingham health authority. That merger was opposed by local people and by clinicians and others involved in the health service, but it was pushed through at the insistence of the region, with the collusion of Ministers. The result is a multi-million-pound deficit in South Birmingham. When one mixes into that equation the impact of the Government's so-called health reforms, one has a financial crisis such as that which now grips the health authority, whose managers are sending to staff circulars saying that it will not be possible to pay bills.
What has happened to those who are responsible for such financial crises? Just yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee of this House asked some pretty searching questions about that matter. The answers are quite instructive.
Mr. Chris Watney, the former director of regionally managed services of the West Midlands regional health authority, is the person who seems to have been most closely involved in the tie-up with the consultancy firm URG, which promised the people of the west midlands savings of up to £50 million but ended up costing them £4 million. Those costs included expenses running to about £350,000 for such items as leased houses in London for the firm's executives and their wives, the hire of aircraft to come to work, and lavish entertainment. What happened to Mr. Watney? Was he sacked? No. He received a redundancy pay-off of more than £80,000. It was subsequently discovered that he had been overpaid to the tune of more than £40,000. So much for Mr. Watney.
Then we have Mr. Martin Davies, the former director of finance of the West Midlands regional health authority, who, the former chair of the authority said, had signed the authorisation to go ahead with the URG contract without his approval. What happened to Mr. Davies? He resigned. Despite the fact that he had not been sacked, he received pay in lieu of notice. Then we have Mr. Ken Bales, the former chief executive of the West Midlands regional health authority. He too appears to have been well involved in a number of the major projects of that authority. No action was taken. He resigned, in the normal course of events, not very long ago.
Then we come to Sir James Ackers, who was the chair of the West Midlands regional health authority, the man whom the Secretary of State stood by through thick and thin. His name also crops up in the URG scandal. The Audit Commission had something to say about what it discovered about his involvement in that consultancy. He attended a dinner. I shall quote what the Audit Commission said about that dinner, at which the details of the contract, which lost the people of the west midlands £4 million, were apparently discussed:
The details were … explained at a dinner (after the work had started) given for the Director (RMS), the RHA

Chairman, the Director of Finance and the Chairman of the Members' Panel. The consultants said that this meeting was specifically to meet the RHA Chairman, to outline the cost and to ensure that the Director (RMS) had full authority to proceed. Afterwards the RHA Chairman said he did not realise that a firm agreement to do the work had been reached.
So he attended a dinner; the details were apparently explained; that led the next day to an authorisation being given, but he did not realise that a firm agreement had been reached.
What happened to him? There were calls for his resignation. Finally, he resigned just last month, in January. The Secretary of State accepted his resignation with these words:
You have supported the reforms of the NHS and have overseen their successful implementation in the region. In addition, you recently initiated some important movements in the managerial structure of the region. Underpinning all this has been your personal commitment to the health service and its patients.
I should also acknowledge your valuable contributions as chairman of all the regional chairmen, and as a member of the NHS Policy Board which has advised successive Secretaries of State.
We discovered yesterday that what Sir James Ackers has contributed had been acknowledged by the Secretary of State, because we were told at the Public Accounts Committee that the Secretary of State had decided not to take action about the losses incurred under the stewardship of Sir James Ackers but to grant him a discretionary payment of an undisclosed sum.
So no action appears to have been taken against any of these people. We heard yesterday, however, of one person who is still employed by the West Midlands regional health authority who was given a telling off for what happened. That is the man who apparently was responsible for the overpayment of more than £40,000 to Mr. Watney. That man is the regional director of personnel, Mr. Mel Nock. He is an important man in the regional health authority to this day.
We have heard very little of Mr. Nock in the course of the story so far, but we need to know not just how he came to overpay Mr. Watney to the tune of £40,000 but what he knew of the other things that had been going on in the west midlands. He is the director of personnel, an important man. Apart from anyone else, the pensioners of Qa Business Services should know what the man responsible for personnel had to do with what happened in the regional health authority.
All this shows incredible double standards on the part of the Government. Let us imagine what would have happened if such financial scandals had involved not a health authority but an elected local authority. If a local authority had been involved, Ministers would have been screaming from the rooftops about surcharges and allegations about left-wing councils. What a difference we see when it is their boys who have been responsible for the scandals. When it is their boys who are involved, Ministers seem to take pride in avoiding answering questions from Members. There has been a series of reports on what has been going on, but very few of them have been published.
Just before Christmas, the district auditor sent a management letter to the senior management of the regional health authority. It detailed the stage which the district auditor had reached in his investigation. The letter was not confidential, but I have yet to see it; it has not been published. Indeed, in a question a short time ago, I asked whether the Minister would direct that the report be


published. I was told in reply that there was no such report. I checked again, knowing that the document had been sent, and discovered that it was known technically as a management letter. I tabled another question asking whether the management letter could be published. I received the inevitable response—the sort of answer I have received often in recent months—that it was a matter for the regional health authority.
The Secretary of State has power to direct the publication of such documents, but she has chosen not to exercise it. Instead, the people of the west midlands, including hon. Members, are being kept in the dark. When scandals come to light, Ministers sit on their hands, especially if their boys are involved.
The chief executive of the NHS, Sir Duncan Nichol, attended yesterday's meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. He was asked what action he had taken to improve matters, in view of what had come to light, in the west midlands. He said that he had sent a letter to the various health authorities.
The problems in the west midlands still exist. We have a new chair, Sir Donald Wilson, brought in from Mersey regional health authority. He has said that there would be a new regime in the west midlands, that an audit committee would be set up and that new auditors would be appointed. Since his appointment, no further reports have been published.
My requests for publication of the management letter were made both before and after Sir Donald's appointment. I am told that, while what was said at the last regional health authority meeting was not confidential and that the reports could be published, they could not be published just yet, not while a Public Accounts Committee hearing was coming up and its discussions might be prejudiced by the publication of such documents at this stage.
What a load of rubbish. Those reports are still under wraps, and Ministers owe it to the House and the people of the west midlands to publish them. We in South Birmingham still have our deficit, and there is disagreement over how much it is. We were told a couple of weeks ago that it was under control and was less than £1 million. A couple of days later, we were told that it was between £2 million and £2.5 million. We do not know the causes of the financial crisis, and the report by consultants KPMG Peat Marwick has not been published. It was finished last summer, and when we ask Ministers to publish it, they reply that it is a matter for the West Midlands regional health authority.
What has been done to solve the problems of the west midlands? The only action of substance to have been taken in recent weeks is the decision to shut the hospitals. The managers do not suffer; they appear to get glowing tributes and pay-offs. The patients and those who work in the NHS suffer. Nurses are told that after their training they will not receive jobs, not because they are not needed in the area—we in south Birmingham need more nurses—but because of a shortage of money.
As the problems of the west midlands still exist, ask the Minister tonight to come clean and say exactly why our local hospitals are closing. When will the Secretary of State and others in the Government start listening and responding to what people in the west midlands are saying about the way in which their health services are being run? When will they respond to the three fundamental questions that we have been putting?
First, may we have a full, independent public inquiry into what has been going on, revealing all the facts, not just those that Ministers want published? Secondly, we want to know exactly who is to blame for the financial crisis. Whoever is to blame—the West Midlands regional health authority or South Birminham—it is not the fault of the patients, so they should not be forced to suffer. Therefore, South Birmingham should receive the financial injection it needs to maintain local services and to ensure that patients do not suffer.
Thirdly, why is it so difficult for Ministers to say that regional health authorities should be open and accountable to the people whom they are supposed to serve? The health service is meant to be a service for people free at the point of need, but we are not seeing very much of that in the west midlands at the moment. I hope that, if the Minister is serious about improving health services in this country, he will change direction today and provide us with the cash we need. I hope that he will insist on openness, insist that the reports be published, and insist that accountability and democracy return to the health service in the west midlands.

Dr. Lynne Jones: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, there is apparently a requirement that health authorities and trusts conduct their business in as open a manner as possible. However, as we have heard, the reports on the activities of West Midlands regional health authority and South Birmingham health authority remain unpublished. Elected Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend and I have been unable to see the reports, while decisions have been taken against the wishes of the people of Birmingham.
In Birmingham, we have seen hospitals proposed for closure and campaigns against the closures. Hon. Members and elected councillors have expressed grave concern about what is happening in our health authority. On 25 November, I wrote to the Secretary of State expressing concern about the impact on patient care of the proposals to close the hospitals. I asked the right hon. Lady to intervene, because she had said that she was concerned about patient care. We hear a lot from the right hon. Lady about how much she cares, and I took her at her word—I thought that she did care.
On 5 January I wrote again, reminding the Secretary of State that I still had not received a reply to my letter of 25 November and explaining further concerns that had come to light, some of which have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. Those concerns arise out of reports by the Audit Commission and by neighbouring health authorities, which are most concerned about the effect of the hospital closures on the people they are trying to serve. I still received no reply. I tabled a parliamentary question, but despite further reminders, including a conversation with the staff of the private office of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), and although I faxed a copy of my original letter, only today did I receive a reply.
It is too late. As my hon. Friend has said, the decision was taken last week. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Department of Health informed us of that decision, although they were polite and sensible enough to apologise


to us a day later for the fact that they had not responded to our requests for a meeting with the Secretary of State and had not bothered to inform us before announcing publicly that they had decided to go ahead with the hospital closures.
My hon. Friend has explained the background to the decision—the financial deficit in South Birmingham health authority after the merger. We still cannot get to the bottom of exactly how big the deficit is; estimates vary dramatically. We know that letters went out to all members of staff informing them that, even now, bills presented after 28 December could not be paid. It seems that the financial crisis has still not been solved, yet the plans to solve it involve the closure of our hospitals. The rationale for these closures has always been that somehow it is an interim measure in the progress towards the grandiose plans with which we have been presented, entitled "Building a Healthy Birmingham". Like so many decisions from health authorities in the west midlands, those plans have been opposed by the majority of people for whom they are supposed to provide better services.
On Tuesday, Labour Members representing constituencies in the west midlands had a meeting with Sir Roy Griffiths. He confirmed that those plans have now hit the skids, as there are insufficient resources available. He told us that there was a capital moratorium and that, in his opinion, the health authority would get better value for money by tackling the maintenance backlog than by implementing the major new building programme that had been proposed.
Our hospitals are now being closed and facilities moved into the general hospital, on the basis that it will provide better services because the accident and emergencies services and the orthopaedic services would be better provided within a district general hospital. There is one problem with that argument and that is that all the services in the general hospital that give it its name—the general surgical and medical services—are moving out. The arguments about patient care do not stand up to examination.
At the last minute, in response to those valid criticisms, the health authority said that it would retain one consultant position and one consultant surgeon. Inquiries today reveal that the consultants being kept on are those who are due to retire, so, yet again, this is a temporary sop to attempt to justify an unjustifiable decision to decimate our services in Birmingham.
We are not opposed to changes in the configuration of our hospitals. For example, there is much support for the building of a new children's hospital and for the rebuilding of the elderly services block at Selly Oak hospital in my constituency which was condemned as long ago as 1978; yet it is still there and there are still no plans to replace it. Yes, there is scope for investment in our hospitals, but, for goodness' sake, why do not the Government intervene to ensure that the health authorities consult the city council and the elected representatives? Unelected, Government-appointed people have been riding roughshod over the views of elected representatives of the people of Birmingham, clinicians and others who know about our health services.
At the meeting with Sir Roy Griffiths, he accepted that there had been problems and that there was a need for

greater consultation with the city of Birmingham and its elected representatives. He said that those responsible for problems in the past had now left the health authority. Sir Roy Griffiths and his adviser were somewhat embarrassed when they were asked under precisely what terms those people—Sir James Ackers, Mr. Ken Bales and Mr. Martin Davies—have left the authority.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield explained, the manner in which they left also causes great concern. They left not under a cloud, accepting responsibility for the manner in which they had run the health authority, but with very nice amounts of money, which I hope will be revealed. The people of Birmingham should know exactly what the financial arrangements were for the payouts to Sir James Ackers and the others who have been mentioned.
In the United Kingdom, we now have Government-appointed, non-elected representatives running our health authorities and health services. Obviously, that is the direction in which other public services are moving. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said, if elected councillors had taken the same decisions as those non elected representatives took, they would have been rightly condemned.
I should like the Minister to respond in a way that gives the people of Birmingham and the west midlands confidence that people will be accountable for their actions and will intervene and listen to the views of the elected representatives and the people of Birmingham in future.
Our hospitals in Birmingham have not yet closed. There are still arguments about the effects of such closures on patient care. It is clear that the decisions were taken on financial grounds, not on the basis of improving facilities for the people of Birmingham. It is not too late for the Department of Health and Ministers to sit round the table and talk to the elected representatives to see whether they can find a way forward so that we can have confidence in the future and a pattern of hospitals which serves the people of Birmingham. They should ensure that decisions are not taken for short-term financial reasons.

Mr. Terry Davis: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and the Minister for allowing me to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking the initiative and managing to get this opportunity not only for himself but for other hon. Members from Birmingham to put to the Minister our serious concerns about the way in which the West Midlands health authority has behaved not just in recent weeks or months but in recent years.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for Northfield have referred to the session of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday. As a member of that Committee, I shall not comment on yesterday's proceedings, because, as my hon. Friends will appreciate, we are considering our report, which will come out in due course.
The Public Accounts Committee has asked for further information before we report. We have asked for copies of some of the secret reports to which my hon. Friends have referred, because one of the features of the West Midlands health authority recently has been the series of secret reports which have been prepared but not published. Those reports have not been made available to hon.


Members in the House and certainly not to the public. We know about the report of the National Audit Office on which the Committee took evidence yesterday, but that is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of reports.
We know that there is a series of reports from the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission told us that not only the contents but the subjects of the reports are confidential. We cannot even be told what the National Audit Office has reported on or found it necessary to investigate. There is a total shroud of secrecy. We have had some internal studies done. We have had the so-called Carver report which has not been made available to Members of Parliament or the public. I understand that we have had a report by Peat Marwick, which is secret.
I sometimes think that the West Midlands health authority is drawing up more reports than it is treating patients. As my hon. Friends have said, it is essential that we have a public inquiry so that all of us who live in and represent the west midlands, especially the city of Birmingham, can see exactly what is happening.
I shall not comment on the allegations and criticisms which have been made about Sir James Ackers and some of the former officers of the West Midlands health authority for the reasons which I have already explained. I expect that there will be some comments about those matters in the report which my colleagues and I will eventually publish on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee.
Other aspects of the affairs of the West Midlands health authority are already public knowledge. My hon. Friends have referred to the public report, endorsed by the West Midlands health authority and eventually approved by the Secretary of State for Health, ridiculously entitled "Building a Healthy Birmingham". My hon. Friends have described some of the proposals in that report, which, frankly, can be summarised as concentrating as many services as possible on one site—the Queen Elizabeth hospital.
When Sir James Ackers, as chairman of the health authority, was called upon to explain the reason for and motivation of the proposals, he used—in my hearing and more than once—a very revealing word. In describing the proposals to centralise services as much as possible on the Queen Elizabeth site, which is grossly inaccessible to most people in Birmingham except the middle-class people who live nearby, he used a most revealing word: he said that he would give us an excellent "campus". That is the only time I have ever heard anyone, or any Member of Parliament of any party, use the word "campus" in discussing hospitals. The proposal is not about treating sickness, disease and disability among the people of the city of Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands: it is about creating a university of Birmingham medical school. That was the motivation behind the scenes.
The health authority wanted to put as much as possible on one site near the university of Birmingham, so that students and consultants would not have to travel but the patients would travel to them. That is the wrong purpose behind the planning of hospitals. The people of Birmingham said so. Their elected representatives, city councillors as well as Members of Parliament, said so. Indeed, the local newspapers, which are not friends of the Labour movement, said that the strategy was appalling. I have yet to find anyone except the university of Birmingham medical school and the health authority who

believes that the proposals in "Building a Healthy Birmingham" are good. I must add, of course, that the Secretary of State for Health approved the proposals.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the sad saga was the attempt to manipulate public opinion. I use that word deliberately. I am a resident of Birmingham. I live in my constituency, as my hon. Friends live in theirs. I was surprised to receive a glossy leaflet through the letter box urging us to support the proposals in "Building a Healthy Birmingham". It was signed by the chairman of the East Birmingham health authority. It did not surprise me that he was in cahoots with Sir James Ackers, but it surprised me that, when I went to see the chairman of the district health authority, at his invitation, to discuss the proposals, he criticised them.
I told the chairman of the district health authority that I found it difficult to understand why I had received through my letter box a leaflet saying that the proposals were good when he had said that they were bad. He said, "I had to do it—it was written for me." All he did was put his name on the leaflet. It was written for him by the West Midlands regional health authority, and we shall never know what threats were used to make him put his signature on that leaflet.
The leaflet boasted about the improvements to come, which had already been approved. For the purposes of political propaganda, they were attributed to "Building a Healthy Birmingham". The leaflet said that a new maternity unit would be built as a result of the report, but that proposal had already been approved, and the money was there. There were several other examples like that.
A clear attempt was made to manipulate public opinion, but the health authority failed to do so—just as it failed to persuade the local people in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in the East Birmingham health authority area that the proposal to have the first opt-out or trust hospital in Birmingham was a good thing. It failed to persuade not only the Labour party, which organised petitions against the proposal. To my certain knowledge, those petitions were also signed by supporters of the Conservative party; they agreed with us that the proposal was a bad thing, and wanted to keep East Birmingham hospital as it was.
The consultants had a ballot about the proposal to opt out. They did not like it. They did not want a trust. Other doctors at the hospital had a ballot. They did not want a trust. The nurses and other staff had a secret ballot. They did not like the proposal, either. They were opposed to it. But the health authority said that it knew best. The local people were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal to opt out. The community health council, which represents local people, unanimously opposed the proposal for a trust at East Birmingham hospital. I declare an interest because the chair of the council is my wife.
Most significantly, one group of people opposed the proposal who could not be accused of having vested interests or not understanding the issues. I respect the opinions of that group most of all. They are the local family doctors. They were not consulted by the regional health authority. They were consulted by the health authority, but they were consulted on the initiative of East Birmingham community health council, which found that the family doctors were overwhelmingly opposed to the trust as well.
I was not surprised, but I was very sad, when West Midlands regional health authority rejected all our


propositions. "We know best," the authority said, and the Secretary of State for Health rubber-stamped the decision in her turn—or was it his turn? The right hon. Lady's predecessor may have been in office then, but it makes no difference: the policies do not change just because the bottom on the seat changes. Anyway, the trust went ahead despite the opposition of doctors, nurses, national health service staff, local people, family general practitioners and all their representatives—again, on the basis of secret reports.
When I said that I did not know whether it was a good idea, and that I wanted to look at the business plan, I was told that I could not do so, because the plan was financial and therefore secret—like so much to do with money in the West Midlands regional health authority. No one outside the inner circle is allowed to know the financial realities until it is too late and wards and hospitals start to be closed.
My hon. Friends have described the position vividly. The closure of Woodlands hospital and the accident hospital, and the proposed closure of Birmingham General hospital down the road, have been overwhelmingly opposed—not only by local people who depend on those hospitals, but by the people of Birmingham in general. Their opposition, however, has been to no avail. Whatever else may be said about the affairs of the West Midlands health authority, it does not care about the views of local people, and it certainly does not represent local people.
My hon. Friends are right to criticise the authority's lack of accountability, and I support their call for a public inquiry into what has been going on in the authority. If that is too embarrassing for all the people involved, why do they not simply resign? It is not enough for Sir James Ackers to go, although he has headed the authority—and bravely said yesterday that the buck stops with him. He has not been alone: what about all the other political appointments to the authority—the faceless men and women who have acted as rubber stamps for the Government's policies? They, too, should go—and until they do, the people of the west midlands will have no confidence in their regional health authority.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am glad to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). Not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman has concentrated on the difficulties faced by the West Midlands health authority rather than on its considerable achievements. Perhaps he should consider how to convince his audience that he is interested in health, rather than being concerned merely with the political and media appeal of the series of supposed conspiracies with which he appears to be obsessed.
We are talking here about health services, and there are good stories to tell about the health service in the west midlands—let us not forget that. The regional health authority is the largest in the country, comprising 19 districts and covering a population of some 5 million. Its financial allocation for 1993–94 is very large compared with the regional average: this year's allocation represents a 5 per cent. increase in real terms over that of the previous year. That increase, together with the commitment and

dedication of the authority's staff, has enabled the authority to deliver a continually improving service to the population of the region.
In the past 10 years, under the active leadership of Sir James Ackers, treatment levels have risen dramatically. The treatment of in-patients has risen by 25 per cent. and that of day cases by 141 per cent.
In the past year alone, the total number of patients waiting more than one year for treatment has been reduced by 42 per cent. There is no longer anyone waiting more than two years for treatment, and more than 60 capital schemes have been completed by the authority since 1979. In south Birmingham, a new cardiac unit was opened at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in 1991 at a cost of £2 million. This year, the £13 million Queen Elizabeth psychiatric hospital received its first patient. Birmingham also leads Europe in providing the first quick and early diagnostic centre—a purpose-built facility at the Queen Elizabeth medical centre for the rapid diagnosis of cancer. Those are a few of the many notable achievements of which the region can be justifiably proud.
However, we must not forget—I have not been able to forget it this evening—that a number of issues in the west midlands have required serious attention. I shall outline some of them, together with the action that has been taken to resolve them.
Hon. Members know that the financial position of the South Birmingham health authority was the subject of an earlier Adjournment debate in the summer. It is not worth repeating all the details of the deficit, as we have already spent much time doing so. However, I remind the House that, in response to the problems of the deficit in south Birmingham, plans were produced that centred on removing the signicant duplication of services between the five major hospitals in the district—Selly Oak, Queen Elizabeth, Birmingham accident, royal orthopaedic and Birmingham general. It was proposed that the overspending would be removed not by cutting services, but by removing the costs of duplication of services and providing services more efficiently.
The main point of the plan that the regional health authority agreed last June was that services currently provided by the royal orthopaedic and Birmingham accident hospitals should be transferred to the general hospital and that most of the acute medicine and general surgery provided by the general should move to the Queen Elizabeth hospital.
The regional health authority followed the procedures laid down when closure or change of use for health buildings are proposed. There was a consultation period of more than three months, when the plans were widely circulated and everyone had an opportunity to comment.

Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware of the distinct unhappiness among staff at the Birmingham accident hospital—one of those scheduled for closure—at the fact that they were not directly consulted about the closure plan? Has he been misinformed about that? If he has, does he now feel that the closure plan should be reopened if it is proved that not everyone who should have been consulted was consulted directly?

Mr. Sackville: I have no doubt that all the proper consultation procedures were carried out. I cannot claim that everyone was, or will be, in agreement, but the procedures were carried out.
Ultimately, as in all cases when the local community health council cannot agree with the health authority's plans, the final decision rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. After careful consideration of all the evidence presented, I agreed, on behalf of the Secretary of State, the proposals put forward by South Birmingham health authority to close the Birmingham accident and royal orthopaedic hospitals and transfer the services to the general hospital in Birmingham. I notified the regional and district health authorities, as well as the hon. Members for Northfield and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), and letters were sent to the House on the day of my decision. Hon. Members representing other Birmingham constituencies were notified the following day.
For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall outline my reasons for the decision.
First, I see the closures as the best option for the continued and improved provision of accident and emergency and orthopaedic services within the district until such time as the new facilities at the South Birmingham medical centre become available. Secondly, they are a necessary step along the path to securing financial balance within South Birmingham health authority. Another factor is the age, condition and layout of the buildings of both hospitals. The high costs of meeting clinical, statutory and safety standards all speak against the retention of the hospitals.
I fully appreciate the strength of feeling for well-loved hospitals and my Department has received many letters praising the work of the royal orthopaedic hospital in particular. We must, however, take this opportunity to ensure that buildings meet the needs of modern health care and match the quality of medical and nursing care that takes place within those buildings.
There has been talk of cross-infection. The concerns about it have been considered and have been fully taken into account. As the hon. Member for Northfield knows, the burns unit will be housed in a self-contained unit with dedicated theatres. It will be located in a separate block away from orthopaedics. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman about that.
Emergency cover at the Birmingham general hospital has been raised. I remind the hon. Members for Northfield and for Selly Oak that the South Birmingham acute unit has stated that 24-hour medical and surgical cover will be available at registrar level. It will be provided on a rota basis from the Queen Elizabeth and Selly Oak hospitals. Additional consultant cover during normal working hours will be provided from the out-patient and day-case surgeries at the general hospital. Outside normal hours, dedicated consultant cover will be provided, and I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Lady on that point.

Dr. Lynne Jones: We have been told that patient service could be improved by the relocation of the specialty hospitals in the district general hospital setting, yet the Minister is telling us that the relocation to the eneral hospital will result in cover being provided from the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals, which are much further from the general hospital than they are from the present location. That does not square with the idea of an improvement in patient service.

Mr. Sackville: I can only seek to reassure the hon. Lady that adequate cover will be maintained. It is a matter that

I have discussed with Sir Don Wilson. It is a point of considerable concern that must be considered, and I have received assurances. I shall personally monitor the continuing situation.
The hon. Member for Northfield concentrates very much on the problems that have occurred and he focused on the various doubts about the financial transactions that have been carried out by the region. Let him concentrate also on health services and on the efforts of all those who work for the health service in the west midlands so that he is able to take full account of the excellent work that is done.
I shall refer to some of the achievements within the west midlands. If we concentrate only on matters that are the subject of inquiries, a one-sided picture could be presented of health services in the west midlands. There are many positive features.
I point, first, to an interest of my own, which is the West Midlands ambulance service. It provides a good example. It is one of the largest ambulance services in the country. It has received accreditation to BS 5750 on the basis of a total quality service. It was the first ambulance service to introduce paramedic motor cyclists. It is currently leading the way in ensuring that all ambulance services have a trained paramedic included as part of their front-line teams.
This is one of the great success stories of the modern health service. Soon, the public in the west midlands and elsewhere will know that, every time an ambulance attends an emergency or accident, it will contain a paramedic as part of the crew, who will have been trained to a high level. The paramedic will have been trained specifically to resuscitate and support life in the pre-hospital period.
The West Midlands ambulance service has also just won the United Kingdom transplant support service contract, which commenced this month, for transporting teams and organs nationwide—an important and topical development.
Despite an 8 per cent. increase in emergency activity, the West Midlands ambulance service is an example of an efficient organisation with resources channelled towards patient care. All emergency vehicles are under six years old, and nearly all are now equipped with defibrillators.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I hesitate to intervene again, but the Minister has raised the issue of the ambulance service. I welcome his announcement about the involvement of paramedics, but information that I have received from a number of general practitioners in my constituency shows that all is not well with the West Midlands ambulance service.
For instance, the Minister should consider the case of the man who had to wait three hours for an ambulance which should have arrived within the hour, and who ended up having to have his leg amputated. I was also told of another two cases in which, in the end, patients took taxis and, if they had not done so, would have suffered a similar fate.
I have heard from other general practitioners that the ambulance service is not as fast as it used to be, so we have concern there as well. I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that, once again, he is out of touch with the reality on the ground.

Mr. Sackville: I have visited the ambulance service within the last two weeks, and I was extremely impressed


with what I saw. I was aware of considerable dedication among staff, crews and management. It had one of the most impressive control centres that I have ever seen, and I have visited a large number in recent months. I am assured—I saw the figures to prove it—that response times are improving fast. In a large ambulance service—this is the second largest in the country—there will always be problems from time to time. All that I can say is that the quality of commitment and what has been achieved by the West Midlands ambulance service is striking.

Mr. Terry Davis: Did the Minister, during his visit to the west midlands, take the opportunity not only to visit the ambulance service but the head office of the West Midlands regional health authority in Hagley road to talk to its members? Was he impressed by that?

Mr. Sackville: I made a specific visit to the ambulance service, which is one of my particular interests. It is one of the success stories for which it should be given credit.

Mr. Davis: Has the Minister ever visited the office of the West Midlands regional health authority? Has he ever talked to its members? Does he not want to?

Mr. Sackville: I have not had the honour of visiting the offices of the West Midlands regional health authority. I have visited a number of hospitals and other health facilities in the West Midlands in recent months, and that is the important thing. It is what happens on the ground that matters.
The paramedic skills in the Staffordshire ambulance service should not be overlooked. Two members of the service were included recently in the team drawn mainly form the North Staffordshire trauma centre at the request of the Prime Minister to travel to what was Yugoslavia to provide help and paramedic advice to the people of that troubled country.
The West Midlands is making excellent progress on health promotion—the key theme of the White Paper "The Health of the Nation". I opened and addressed a conference on the health of the nation in Birmingham recently.
In Sandwell, a health fair and open day to promote healthy lifestyles has been organised by the family health services authority. Westminster now provides parents and children with regular health and safety advice. The priority health unit in Dudley is working with the FHSA and local GPs—

Mr. Burden: The Minister's comments are fascinating, but they are not the subject of this debate. Could I ask him to comment on this: Sir James Ackers, when he was the chair of the West Midlands regional health authority, stated that the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan, which, from what the Minister said, is still on the go, was not compatible with the creation of hospital trusts in the South Birmingham area. He said that until the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan was well down the road, the region would not support the creation of hospital trusts.
Since that time, expressions of interest have come in from the acute unit in South Birmingham. That is also a matter of some concern to my constituents. Will the Minister, in this review of the situation in the west midlands, tell us whether he looks with favour on those

expressions of interest, or whether he agrees with Sir James Ackers that they are incompatible with the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan?

Mr. Sackville: I am absolutely in favour of the creation of trusts if the organisations and health facilities that wish to attain trust status are deemed suitable. There are some very successful health trusts in the west midlands. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Northfield had got past having to oppose trust status on political grounds, because the BMA and many other people have got past that stage. I think that he is living in the past.
I want now to mention the priority health unit in Dudley, which, working with the FHSA and local GPs, provides professional advice and care to patients requiring chiropody and audiology services through GPs' surgeries or in mobile units. Virtually all Coventry GPs are now involved in some form of positive health promotion, including well-woman clinics, heart disease prevention and advice on alcohol control and on how to stop smoking. Hereford, Worcester and North Worcester district health authorities have all appointed, for example, anti-smoking facilitators to work with GPs and to give advice to people who want to give up smoking.
For their own staff, West Midlands regional health authority recently held a health-at-work workshop to promote healthy lifestyles and to provide practical advice on how to achieve that.
That is what this debate is about; it is about health services in the west midlands, and if hon. Members are concerned only with what has gone wrong and what are the supposed scandals or problems in the financial management of the regional health authority, they are not interested in health.

Mr. Terry Davis: These are not "supposed" scandals. The Comptroller and Auditor General told the House that senior officials of the West Midlands regional health authority have shown a cavalier disregard for proper procedures and for proper standards of public life. Does he not understand that these are serious criticisms? Will he stop sheltering behind people working in the national health service? My hon. Friends and I have not criticised people working in the national health service. We have criticised the people running the service in the west midlands, the people appointed by this Minister and his Secretary of State. What has he to say to defend them?

Mr. Sackville: The net effect of the constant criticisms is to denigrate the efforts of all those who work in the health services in the west midlands. What the hon. Member and his hon. Friends need to do is spend a little more time seeing what is happening on the ground—

Mr. Terry Davis: Who spends more time on the ground—him or us?

Mr. Sackville: He will see that there are tens of thousands of dedicated people working for the health service in the west midlands who deserve a little praise and encouragement from time to time.

Mr. Burden: If the Minister agrees with me, as he seems to, that thousands of staff who work for West Midlands regional health authority, component hospitals and district health authorities are dedicated and need a fair deal, are not they entitled to know, as we are, the causes of the scandals in south Birmingham, to see the KPMG


Peat Marwick report, to read the auditors' report and to find out and be told why millions of pounds that could have gone into improving health care has gone down the drain because the people running the health authority have mismanaged it? If he believes that they have the right to know that, will he today direct the publication of the reports to which I and my hon. Friends have referred?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Member is obsessed with publication of reports. The matters that have been referred to tonight have been properly investigated. Any action that is due will be taken. He has my assurance on that.

In conclusion—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Sackville: In conclusion, I want to respond to what the hon. Member for Selly Oak said about giving people in the west midlands confidence about their health service. They can have the confidence of knowing that the things which have given rise to inquiries will be properly investigated and all the proper action will be taken. Where there are doubts as to finances and financial problems,

such as in South Birmingham, action plans will be followed through which will bring those matters into balance.
I ask the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, as well as asking me for that assurance, to help to give that confidence to people in the west midlands and to ensure that financial problems are not the only things that they read about with regard to health in the west midlands; that they read also about the dedication and the work—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has twice received letters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggesting that he come into the Department to discuss these matters. I had a very constructive meeting recently with the community health council, which he did not attend. He is welcome any time to come into the Department to discuss these matters with me; I hope that he will take me up on that.
I reiterate what I have been saying in the past few minutes. There have been great achievements in health in the west midlands which should not be ignored. They are achievements of which any region could be justly proud. They underline the region's enormous investment in and commitment to patient care and patient services.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock.